Why does the government hide UFO's?

[paddoboy]

And so you ofcourse know exactly what an alien intelligence would be up to at all times, how it should act, where it would go, how long it would stay, and the people it would be contacting. You don't even believe in them. Since when are you an expert on them?

And you of course know that each and every grainy photo you link to is genuine and each claim and word of mouth by all and sundry are genuine also.
Again you avoid the issue at hand my friend.

 

[exchemist]

And you of course know that each and every grainy photo you link to is genuine and each claim and word of mouth by all and sundry are genuine also.
Again you avoid the issue at hand my friend.

It would be so nice, wouldn't it, if we could have one, just one, well-researched and documented case study to debate in depth?

That would be so much more convincing than the usual Gish Gallop of flaky cases: "What-you-don't like-that-one-how about this-no-try this-and-this-and-this....", covering each card quickly with the next, so to avoid detailed scrutiny of any of them.

 

[Yazata]

It would be so nice, wouldn't it, if we could have one, just one, well-researched and documented case study to debate in depth?

That's going to be difficult with a transient phenomenon. A phenomenon that's unusual, that happens unexpectedly and only lasts for a short time. In order to research something well enough to fully document it, however that works, it would have to appear in front of researchers who are prepared to receive it, linger long enough that suitable instruments can be brought into play, and ideally leave informative physical traces.

That would be so much more convincing than the usual Gish Gallop

'Gish gallop'? Add that to 'Aunt Sally' and 'woo' as words that I'd never heard in my 67 years of life until I started posting on Sciforums. I don't like 'Gish gallop' since it's an ad-hominem attack on a particular individual, because he's a Biblical creationist.

of flaky cases: "What-you-don't like-that-one-how about this-no-try this-and-this-and-this....", covering each card quickly with the next, so to avoid detailed scrutiny of any of them.

In this ufo case there is apparently a huge body of evidence, none of which is as informative as many people (including me) would like. That's why I can't draw any final conclusions about whether or not anything extraordinary and anomalous/transcendent is happening in some subset of the cases. Those problem cases may be inexplicable as they stand, but might not be nearly as mysterious if we knew more about them. That's my guess, but I don't really know it for a fact. But it's why I don't get very excited about ufos.

 

[exchemist]

That's going to be difficult with a transient phenomenon. A phenomenon that's unusual, that happens unexpectedly and only lasts for a short time. In order to research something well enough to fully document it, however that works, it would have to appear in front of researchers who are prepared to receive it, linger long enough that suitable instruments can be brought into play, and ideally leave informative physical traces.



'Gish gallop'? Add that to 'Aunt Sally' and 'woo' as words that I'd never heard in my 67 years of life until I started posting on Sciforums. I don't like 'Gish gallop' since it's an ad-hominem attack on a particular individual, because he's a Biblical creationist.



In this ufo case there is apparently a huge body of evidence, none of which is as informative as many people (including me) would like. That's why I can't draw any final conclusions about whether or not anything extraordinary and anomalous/transcendent is happening in some subset of the cases. Those problem cases may be inexplicable as they stand, but might not be nearly as mysterious if we knew more about them. That's my guess, but I don't really know it for a fact. But it's why I don't get very excited about ufos.

Gish Gallop is a dishonest rhetorical technique, named after an individual who was a notorious exponent. The terms serves a perfectly valid purpose to describe that technique. It is not an ad-hominem attack on the man, it is an attack on his method of avoiding debate. Don't be so sanctimonious.

 

[Yazata]

Yazata:

It occurs to me that one problem with pseudoscientific claims is that they take no risks. Their claims are often built in a way that makes them immune to falsification, which is the exact opposite of what scientists do.

Do you notice how, when a skeptic raises a potential problem with the believer's interpretation of some evidence, they believer all too often has an ad hoc way out of the problem?

For example:

Assuming that they are non-human intelligences (which is something that we don't really know), maybe they have any number of hypothetical reasons for not making unambiguous contact. Maybe they are extraterrestrial anthropologists of some sort and want to examine the development of another species at a crucial moment in its history, the period right after the rise of science and industrialism perhaps, without distorting the unfolding of Earth history by making their own presence known. A flight of science-fiction speculation (it's nothing more than that) that I'm personally fond of is that they are time travelers from our own future who know that they can't change the past without endangering their own history. But if they already know about the history of the ufo phenomenon in our time, they figure that they are safe if they conform to it (since it turns out that they are the ones who created it in the first place).

This is a nice piece of speculation and - who knows? - it could be true. But it's also noticeably convenient, isn't it?

Why don't the aliens make unambiguous contact with humanity? Because of any of a number of possible unverifiable motives they might conceivably have.

I don't think that you understood the context of the text that you quoted. Let's review. Paddoboy had asked the following question:

Obviously if they were truly of Alien origin, wouldn't they want to try and make some truly intelligent logical contact? Wouldn't they at least recognise that we were somewhat of a Intelligent species [even though still possibly light years behind themselves] and would again, want to make some officially recognised contact?

Paddoboy had introduced the assumption that if ufos are truly of "Alien origin" (however that's defined), then they would want to establish some kind of formal contact with Earth's governments, or something. I was arguing that that particular assumption is very weak, since if aliens do exist, we don't have any idea what their motives might be. It's possible that "any number of possible unverifiable motives" as you put it, might contradict the assumption. I don't need to verify the truth of any of those contradictory motives, since their mere possibility implies that the 'desire for contact' assumption (which itself is unverifiable) can't be conclusive.

We can't prove that the aliens aren't motivated by something that makes them shy. So the "shy aliens" hypothesis is, as a practical matter, unfalsifiable. The hypothesis is immune to any actual test.

Nor can we simply assume that the aliens would be motivated by the desire to make contact with earth governments, if a host of possible contradictory motivations are still on the table. So the "gregarious aliens" assumption is untenable.

 

[DaveC426913]

That's going to be difficult with a transient phenomenon. A phenomenon that's unusual, that happens unexpectedly and only lasts for a short time. In order to research something well enough to fully document it, however that works, it would have to appear in front of researchers who are prepared to receive it, linger long enough that suitable instruments can be brought into play, and ideally leave informative physical traces.

I addressed this already. The Chelyabinsk meteor raced across the Russian sky back in Feb 2013. It was inadvertently picked up on multiple video feeds all across the city. Multiple independent witnesses that are not even closely related geographically turned in very clear videos, many seconds long from multiple angles, from which quite a bit of information can be gathered.

Just Google Chelyabinsk meteor video
https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourcei...&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Chelyabinsk+meteor&tbm=vid

Look at how much the circumstances are similar to UFO incidents:
- unexpected
- short duration
- non-repeatable

Yet look at how much the outcome is superior to UFO incidents:
- recent, as opposed to decades old
- video, as opposed to photos or descriptions
- even the audio is recorded, and can be used to calculate distance
- excellent context with geography as opposed to isolated in sky with no size comparisons
- very high quality, as opposed to grainy and shaky
- multiple angles, perfect consistency between views
- multiple unrelated witnesses, as opposed to all witnesses in a bunch, potentially unwittingly corroborating each others' account
- witnesses in many cases were in the worst possible condition to capture the event - they were actually driving their cars - yet they, without lifting a finger, got spectacular documentation anyway

If a UFO incident, even one, ever, came anywhere near to being this well-documented, we would not be having this debate.

 

[billvon]

That's going to be difficult with a transient phenomenon. A phenomenon that's unusual, that happens unexpectedly and only lasts for a short time.

You've just described most of high energy physics. Yet we have successfully observed phenomena from black hole collision ring-down to the Higgs boson.

In order to research something well enough to fully document it, however that works, it would have to appear in front of researchers who are prepared to receive it, linger long enough that suitable instruments can be brought into play, and ideally leave informative physical traces.

Exactly. And we have done so many, many times with phenomena far more rare (if reports are to be believed) than alien UFO's.

'Gish gallop'? Add that to 'Aunt Sally' and 'woo' as words that I'd never heard in my 67 years of life until I started posting on Sciforums. I don't like 'Gish gallop' since it's an ad-hominem attack on a particular individual, because he's a Biblical creationist.

Most such terms come from specific people who exemplify the trait.

Those problem cases may be inexplicable as they stand, but might not be nearly as mysterious if we knew more about them. That's my guess, but I don't really know it for a fact. But it's why I don't get very excited about ufos.

I don't get excited about UFO's at all. I've seen several, from above and below (I'm a pilot) but never once have I seen any evidence that they are anything other than unidentified aircraft.

 

[Yazata]

I addressed this already. The Chelyabinsk meteor raced across the Russian sky back in Feb 2013. It was inadvertently picked up on multiple video feeds all across the city. Multiple independent witnesses that are not even closely related geographically turned in very clear videos, many seconds long from multiple angles, from which quite a bit of information can be gathered.

Sure. It released an amount of energy equivalent to a small nuclear explosion. It blew in windows all over the city and produced a light that was described as being like a second sun in the sky.

Everyone's going to notice that.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sure. It released an amount of energy equivalent to a small nuclear explosion. It blew in windows all over the city and produced a light that was described as being like a second sun in the sky.

Everyone's going to notice that.

But those factors did not contribute to the recording of the event.
(Quite literally, in fact. The spectacular recordings occurred in the moments before impact.)

That's kind of my point. This phenomenon was recorded totally inadvertently, and yet is still of very high quality documenting of the phenomenon that occurred that way.

There is no reason why, simply by statistical chance, UFOs should not be inadvertently recorded under similar circumstances.

 

[Magical Realist]

It would be so nice, wouldn't it, if we could have one, just one, well-researched and documented case study to debate in depth?

That would be so much more convincing than the usual Gish Gallop of flaky cases: "What-you-don't like-that-one-how about this-no-try this-and-this-and-this....", covering each card quickly with the next, so to avoid detailed scrutiny of any of them.

I've posted 10 of those cases in post #119 and #120. What's the matter? Can't look at videos again? That was your excuse last time.

 

[Magical Realist]

Gish Gallop is a dishonest rhetorical technique, named after an individual who was a notorious exponent. The terms serves a perfectly valid purpose to describe that technique. It is not an ad-hominem attack on the man, it is an attack on his method of avoiding debate. Don't be so sanctimonious.

It's a whining complaint when someone presents a lot of evidence in a debate that the opponent is too lazy to consider. It's an obvious excuse not to look at the evidence. "Waaa..I just wanted one example. Not 10!" Exchemist is known for this.

 

[Magical Realist]

If a UFO incident, even one, ever, came anywhere near to being this well-documented, we would not be having this debate.

So now a ufo has to explode like an atomic bomb and lay waste to an entire forest to be taken seriously? lol! Talk about moving the goalposts!

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh lookie! Here's 10 well-documented multiple-witnessed ufo cases now!

Oh lookie! Here's 10 well-documented multiple-witnessed ufo cases now!

Review of 10 accounts:
1 - 1996
- 4 first-hand accounts (3 police), wrapped in narrative
- audio footage of police band
- bright lights moving slow
- 1 witness saw a triangle behind lights
- no engine noise
- narrative overreaches: only heard 1 person described seeing a triangle

2 - 1984
- might be good video footage but presentation is corrupted, has no audio to give context to footage
- if an account can be found that's not corrupt, could be revisited

3 - text only, third hand, read at-leisure

4 - text only, third hand, read at-leisure

5 - 3 first-hand accounts by three family members
- no footage (despite encounter being 12 minutes in duration)
- started off looking like 5 lights on top of balloon
- 12 minute duration (shame they couldn't find a camera in 12 minutes)
- resolved into mere silouette in shape of a sharp-edged carpenter's square (i.e. witness says can only see shape against stars)
- seemed to be 500 feet across closeup
- moving 10-15 mph, passed very close over house
- made no sound
- some sort of central light in well
- disappeared over mountain

6 - 45 year old narrated story
- 1 first hand account by helicopter pilot
- no video, audio
- near collision, kept pace
- lost control of craft's altitude
- seen at close range, for some minutes
- pilot describes actual event, but then follows up by describing hypothetical, rather than actual account

7 - 30 years old
- narrated account, third hand
- no footage
- describes 40 minutes intermittent sightings over radar
- experienced pilots
- two lights standing still "appeared to be keeping pace" (only if nearby)
- above clouds
- vertical bars with lights - could feel heat
- 10 minutes of radar
- darted off, saw it again father away
- "mother ship" on horizon, walnut-shaped but only silouette against sky, no features
- radar data closely corroborated object and movements trailing plane
- pilot drew sketches

8 African encounter 62 children - well documented
-narrated, 3rd hand
- no footage

9 - video footage
- radio audio in cockpit (controller mentions Venus twice)
- two minutes of bright light shot by pilot
- shame pilot can't focus on light

10 - pilots
- audio footage cockpit
- unidentified craft, rotating, pulsing red, green light about 10,000 feet
- no radar confirmation

 

[DaveC426913]

So now a ufo has to explode like an atomic bomb and lay waste to an entire forest to be taken seriously? lol! Talk about moving the goalposts!

I won't commit an MR-ism by asking if you can read.

As I said: the footage was all captured before any impact, and would serve just as well had there been no impact at all.

The issue under discussion was the difficulty of capturing quality evidence of an unexpected, fleeting, non-repeatable event.
It happened without anyone needing to lift a finger.

 

[Magical Realist]

I won't commit an MR-ism by asking if you can read.

As I said: the footage was all captured before any impact, and would serve just as well had there been no impact at all.

The issue under discussion was the difficulty of capturing quality evidence of an unexpected, fleeting, non-repeatable event.
It happened without anyone needing to lift a finger.

LOL! Had there been no explosion afterwards, confirming the photos, they would all have been dismissed as flittering blurry images of a something that deserves no investigation. Just like pseudoskeptics do with all ufo photos/footage.

 

[DaveC426913]

LOL! Had there been no explosion afterwards, confirming the photos, they would all have been dismissed as flittering blurry images of a something that deserves no investigation. Just like pseudoskeptics do with all ufo photos/footage.

I won't commit an MR-ism by calling you a "liar" for making a claim that is demonstrably false. Let's just examine the extant facts.

They're not flittering; they're not blurry.
They have ample context from which to rule in and rule out properties of the phenomenon.
Multiple angles from independent recordings.

In short, they are the antithesis of UFO sightings.

 

[Magical Realist]

Review of 10 accounts:
1 - 1996
- 4 first-hand accounts (3 police), wrapped in narrative
- audio footage of police band
- bright lights moving slow
- 1 witness saw a triangle behind lights
- no engine noise
- narrative overreaches: only heard 1 person described seeing a triangle

2 - 1984
- might be good video footage but presentation is corrupted, has no audio to give context to footage
- if an account can be found that's not corrupt, could be revisited

3 - text only, third hand, read at-leisure

4 - text only, third hand, read at-leisure

5 - 3 first-hand accounts by three family members
- no footage (despite encounter being 12 minutes in duration)
- started off looking like 5 lights on top of balloon
- 12 minute duration (shame they couldn't find a camera in 12 minutes)
- resolved into mere silouette in shape of a sharp-edged carpenter's square (i.e. witness says can only see shape against stars)
- seemed to be 500 feet across closeup
- moving 10-15 mph, passed very close over house
- made no sound
- some sort of central light in well
- disappeared over mountain

6 - 45 year old narrated story
- 1 first hand account by helicopter pilot
- no video, audio
- near collision, kept pace
- lost control of craft's altitude
- seen at close range, for some minutes
- pilot describes actual event, but then follows up by describing hypothetical, rather than actual account

7 - 30 years old
- narrated account, third hand
- no footage
- describes 40 minutes intermittent sightings over radar
- experienced pilots
- two lights standing still "appeared to be keeping pace" (only if nearby)
- above clouds
- vertical bars with lights - could feel heat
- 10 minutes of radar
- darted off, saw it again father away
- "mother ship" on horizon, walnut-shaped but only silouette against sky, no features
- radar data closely corroborated object and movements trailing plane
- pilot drew sketches

8 African encounter 62 children - well documented
-narrated, 3rd hand
- no footage

9 - video footage
- radio audio in cockpit (controller mentions Venus twice)
- two minutes of bright light shot by pilot
- shame pilot can't focus on light

10 - pilots
- audio footage cockpit
- unidentified craft, rotating, pulsing red, green light about 10,000 feet
- no radar confirmation

LOL! Once again, the pseudoskeptic, after asking for well-documented and multiply-witnessed accounts, moves the goalposts to having to have video footage and first hand descriptions. Some are even dismissed just because they are too old! Is there a statute of limitations on good ufo accounts? lol!

This essentially confirms that no evidence will ever be enough to convince them, even when it is quite extraordinary and collaborated by multiple witnesses, physical traces, and radar. It is an assault on their faith that ufos could exist. Hence their disengenous dismissal of all cases for some new unmentioned reason, even when they are well documented. Let's be honest here. Has any pseudoskeptic EVER taken a photo or footage of a ufo to be anything more than a hoax, the planet Venus, or swampgas? Never..

 

[Magical Realist]

I won't commit an MR-ism by calling you a "liar" for making a claim that is demonstrably false. Let's just examine the extant facts.

They're not flittering; they're not blurry.
They have ample context from which to rule in and rule out properties of the phenomenon.
Multiple angles from independent recordings.

In short, they are the antithesis of UFO sightings.

The video could be faked. What is more plausible? That a giant asteroid fell from the sky and was caught on camera? Or some guys who want to be famous hoaxing the video? That's the standard psuedoskeptic partyline you know. The outright dismissal of evidence as fake or accounts as lies based on the assumption of the unlikelihood of the alleged phenomenon itself.

 

[DaveC426913]

LOL! Once again, the pseudoskeptic, after asking for well-documented and multiply-witnessed accounts, moves the goalposts to having to have video footage and first hand descriptions.

You misunderstand. I am not dismissing them. Some of them are indeed quite compelling.
I have reviewed them because many of them are virtually worthless but some are not.
This gives others what they asked for, which is your best account - one or two accounts.

This essentially confirms that no evidence will ever be enough to convince them, even when it is quite extraordinary and collaborated by multiple witnesses, physical traces, and radar. It is an assault on their faith that ufos could exist. Hence their disengenous dismissal of all cases, even when they are well documented.

The accounts are intriguing. The extarordinary explanation posited requires better evidence than 'we've ruled out things we can think of'.

You misrepresent your opponent's stance. Nobody is saying UFOs can't exist, simply that we have not seen enough evidence. 'I don't know therefore UFOs' is not scientific.
It is not falsifiable.

 

[DaveC426913]

The videos

Multiple independent videos, multiple geographically-distant viewpoints.

Again, simply pointing out that spontaneous, non-repeatable events are captured.

That, and the the fact meteors do fall from the sky all the time. The Earth is inundated with tons of debris every day. Verifiable by means other than eyewitness accounts. Verifiable in a lab.

It is not rare - in fact it is expected - i.e. consistent with known science. There is no unnecessary multiplication of entities here.

It is orders of magnitude more plausible than alternate explanations. It is by far the most parsimonious explanation.