In defence of space aliens

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What a disingenuous shit you really are James R. Always deliberately ignoring MR's and Yazata's and my explicit and oft repeated statements that 'alien spacecraft' with 'little green men' inside is NOT what we have argued re nature of UFO's. But as a professional shit-stirrer you prefer to always couch your worthless responses in that hackneyed context. Liberally peppered with baiting rhetoric e.g. 'UFO nuts', 'UFO fanboys' etc. Not to mention silly reductio ad absurdum arguments with zero relevance to the actual case in question. Knowing full well that style will only get a just deserved angry reaction. So go ahead and 'punish' me. Your hypocrite anti-ethical standards will make any such just amusing to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah..I noticed James' new "fanboy" ad hom. I guess repeatedly depicting me as stupid and gullible was getting too old.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In my last post, I pointed out that the Nimitz contact was observed by the cruiser's radar and by the airborne E-2 radar. When pilots of aircraft were vectored to the location of the radar sighting, they visually saw both an object hovering in the air (Fravor) and/or water turbulence (Fravor and the Marine). Pilots of aircaft that were subsequently launched also visually observed the flying object, they chased it (it easily eluded them) and cameras on their aircraft recorded it in visual and IR.

And there's not only that Pacific Ocean sequence of events in 2004, there appears to have been another very similar sequence of events over the Atlantic in 2015, that seemingly also involved radar, visual sightings and camera images. The biggest difference communicated in the public accounts of the 2015 sightings seems to be that multiple objects were observed.

My personal opinion is that if something reflects radar energy, is observable both visually and by cameras, and seemingly has physical effects on its surroundings (the water turbulence), then it seems reasonable (to me anyway) to hypothesize that something was physically there.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT ACTUALLY WAS.

I have NEVER argued that it was space aliens. (In this thread or any other thread.) I do hold that open as a possibility, but would give it a fairly low probability in my own estimation. My own speculations run towards some unknown and highly secret experimental aircraft type. (Although these things' observed performance seems to me to be far in excess of the current aeronautical engineering state-of-the-art.)

My argument in my last post was that arguments have repeatedly been made that each observational modality (radar, visual, cameras) might have flaws (however speculative and fanciful those flaws might be). But the likelihood that all of those flaws coming together and co-occurring at the same time and place in just such a way so as the whole sequence of errors coheres into what appears to be a single physical event seems very remote (to me anyway). By far the simplest and most straight-forward hypothesis was that something was physically there that the radar detected, the pilots saw and their cameras recorded. That's what I'm going with.

What I'm doing there btw, is an accepted piece of "scientific method". Corroborating evidence makes initial reports stronger (certainly it strengthens their objectivity) and that's even more so when different lines of investigation come to the same conclusion. For example, take evolutionary biology. Fossil evidence might give us some idea of when an extinct lifeform once lived (from stratigraphy). Now suppose that the molecular geneticists make their own estimate based on their own methods, molecular clocks or whatever. If the two estimates, arrived at by very different means, end up reasonably close, we can say that they confirm each other. Or suppose that visual astronomers observe what appears to be a supernova in a particular part of the sky. And suppose that the x-ray astronomers observe an x-ray burst in the same place at the same time, consistent with a supernova. We would normally interpret that as raising the probability that a supernova in fact occurred. Now we can obviously argue that stratigraphy, molecular clocks, and visual and x-ray astronomical observations are all subject to their own sorts of experimental errors. Errors that might be even more serious and likely than the kind of errors that might effect radars, visual sightings and camera images. My point is that corroboration in multiple modalities tends to reduce the likelihood that an observation report is the result of a particular error in a particular observational modality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

I think that's a very strong argument.

The response to it seems to be (at least in part) that the likelihood of multiple observational modalities suffering simultaneous faults (experimental errors) in just such a way that they all converge on what appears to be a single phenomenon is still more likely than the advent of "little green men".

Of course that's foolishness if we don't know beforehand what the probability of alien visitations actually is. If aliens are in fact visiting the Earth, then the probability of them doing so would be 1, certainty (ex hypothesi). If they aren't, then it would be zero (ex hypothesi). Assuming a-priori in an argument that the likelihood is zero is simply an expression of the (grievously misnamed) "skeptical" premise that alien visitations can't be happening. Which is obviously a doctrine of one's own dismissive faith regarding such things.

It's also a red-herring since the thesis being defended here isn't that aliens are visiting the Earth, it's the weaker proposition that some real physical unidentified flying object(s) were observed by these Navy radars and aviators. Aliens would only be one hypothesis as to what these UFOs were. Unknown aircraft types would be another. There may be more possibilities that I can't think of at the moment. A whole cascade of errors remains a possibility too (Joe Nickell's "comedy of errors" theory) though it's one that I'd assign a fairly low likelihood for the reasons outlined above.

Bottom line: I think that these reports are fascinating and point to a likelihood of real physical events out in the objective world that's high enough that curiosity is warranted. Not a dismissive knee-jerk reaction of insults and little one line posts filled with nothing but idiot sarcasm. (No, that's not "science". Science isn't simply a matter of defending the faith.)

 

I think that real physical objects were observed, I just think that the apparent super-physical aspects of them are due to observation errors.
- no heat apparent plume or no apparent wings doesn't mean it's not mundane technology
- craft being observed miles apart doesn't mean super-technological speed - it can just as easily mean multiple craft (the simpler option)
- apparent right angle turns doesn't mean actual right angle turns
- etc.

 

I rather eagerly bought the paperback edition of the Project Blue Book report when it first hit bookstores. My UFO lovin' cousins were quite excited that a small percentage of the reports were not resolved. Nothing has changed in the intervening half century.

 

"From 1947 to 1969, the Air Force officially investigated Unidentified Flying Objects under Project Blue Book. The project, headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, was “officially” terminated December 17, 1969. During its lifespan, Project Blue Book investigated a total of 12,618 sightings. When the project closed, the Air Force admitted only to 701 cases (5.6 %) as having remained “unidentified.” However, other researchers, including Dr. J. Allen Hynek and Dr. James McDonald, later argued that as many as 4,800 (38 %) of the cases should have been marked as “unexplained,” considering that many cases were marked “explained” even though the explanations were highly untenable.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Project Blue Book Panel

The following cases comprise all of the Blue Book reports officially marked “unexplained” and involving sightings in the state of Texas. The list of unexplained cases was compiled by Don Berliner, for the Fund for UFO Research. Again, these are not necessarily the “best” or “strongest” UFO cases that Blue Book looked at; rather, they are the ones that were officially stamped as “unexplained” for any of a number of reasons."

See link for the 42 unexplained Texas ufo cases:
http://roswellbooks.com/museum/?page_id=583

 

Vested interests want the data to fit their agendas, yes. Pity reality gets in the way.

 

Hahaha. So 'vested interests' i.e. 'UFO nuts/fanatics/fanboys' evidently have wielded extraordinary powers. That managed to get false testimonies from all the 'apparently' reliable witnesses listed in that link MR supplied. Over a span of quite some decades. Or have they had an easy time creating false reports that somehow never got crossed checked for authenticity? Amazing. Far more amazing imo than just accepting that all or nearly all of those witnesses were both real, honest, and reliable, and simply recounted it accurately (with maybe few exceptions) like it was. And that same pattern is repeated worldwide not just Texas. Often, like with the Nimitz 2004 or East coast 2014-2015 'almost daily' sightings/encounters, backed up with radar confirmation.
Once again, what imo was the all-time premier series of genuine non-mundane UFO events:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington,_D.C._UFO_incident

[edit: changed YT link to one with less 'little green/grey men' connotations]
True unbelievers will never be persuaded by mere massively accumulated compelling evidence. Minds made up - no room for a rethink.
Besides, many have lesser motives as well. The sheer joy of shit-stirring.

 

I should clarify.
I do not conclude the above is true. And I do not assert it. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the reports were due to observational error.
I simply suspect that this is the case. I find it the most plausible of the options.

 

This excellent statement by Yazata bears repeating:

"Bottom line: I think that these reports are fascinating and point to a likelihood of real physical events out in the objective world that's high enough that curiosity is warranted. Not a dismissive knee-jerk reaction of insults and little one line posts filled with nothing but idiot sarcasm. (No, that's not "science". Science isn't simply a matter of defending the faith.)"

 

Good thing people have something useful to do, ain't it.

 

Well there is no confusion there

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There are three fundamental sources of UFO's ; intelligent beings far older than ourselves , World war two technology from the Germans and last but not least , government black ops research .

To add , understanding speed per second matters , for example ;

At 2500mph means that per second this craft is moving at , 0.69 miles per second. Think about that .

At 5000mph is 1.38 miles per second . And so on .

This calculation of speed per/second is a calculation that nobody considers .

My point is , is when any craft seems to come from another dimension because it "blinks out or disappears " , this observation is more about speed / second ; Than about " another dimension(s) " .

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ah, the wonders of Science!