All I see is you trying to muddle the issue with an irrelevant sidebar and concentrating on abduction statistics instead of the gist of what the BA said. Who cares? This nit may be relevant for you in your quest to score some cheap points vs the BA but it has nothing to do with the fact astronomers do not see UFOs in the numbers they should see. You come here making far-fetched claims and have yet to provide anything to back up what you say. Instead of avoiding the subject, start providing the solid evidence/data you keep referring to.

One last time responding to Archer17 distraction posts still hoping he can grasp the basics of a trivial argument based on a data set.

Who cares?

Those that understand why fudging the data is a biggest no-no.
Since you don’t seem to understand this elemental principal of science
we have nothing to talk about. The “numbers they should see them” as
you putted are fudged, because the argument was based on a wrong set of data. The rest is irrelevant. It is also not a fact that pro and or am don’t see them and or don’t report them it was a pure speculation.
Now, you can waive hands until cows come home the fact is a fact.
Fudging the data is a no-no – the rest is not relevant.

Science again? Seems you cherry-pick the relevancy of science in your arguments Factoid. I also dispute your presumption that only you can deem what's relevant or not in this discussion. I find your characterization of my participation as "distraction posts" particularly ironic considering the direction you've try to steer this discussion lately. You attempt to bog this discussion down on the "data" of something you haven't even proven exists outside the simple definition of U.F.O.

Whether you respond to me or not I will continue to address what I perceive to be the fallacies you post here. Not to be a nag, but I'm also still waiting for you to supply this "solid data" of yours. Remember, I'm familiar with Vallee so you can't use that as an excuse to avoid this issue as you did with others.

First of all you can think that you can address anything you want. The fact is that you don’t seem to like very much that the data was fudged. Since you don’t seem to understand importance of this and how it renders the rest of the argument as not relevant you can continue to be a distraction to this post. It is quite amusing.

Second, if you’re familiar with Vallee as you claim to be, then you must know where to access the db.

Third, you’re off topic, because the topic of this post wasn’t Vallee. You’re simply distracting from the fact that BA published an articled based on fudged data and tried to pass his empty speculations as facts.

Fourth, I didn’t avoid others as you’re claiming. My reference to Vallee was appropriate in the context of what I said. This thread is not about Vallee.

That's an interesting dance you're doing there Factoid. However, we can see right through it. You want to hone in on one detail of what the BA presented, and ignore everything else.

You want to announce that there is evidence supporting UFO's being of alien origin, but when asked to produce this evidence, you insist that everyone go read it for themselves, which is not, btw, how message boards work.

Then, when pressed further, you announce that the thread has nothing to do with something YOU brought up, and you call those asking for said evidence a distraction.

Your credibility is right out the window.

__________________
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

This is called staying on topic. You want to talk about something else open a new thread on it and we'll talk about it.

Maybe that is what you want. Sad for you, but I never made this claim.

The topic of this thread is not what I brought up, but what BA brought up. Thanks to me I've uncovered that he fudged the data and that his entire argument is irrelevant because of that as well as that it was based on a pure speculation to begin with even if he would have had a correct data.

Obviously some of you have a problem with this and you're trying to attack me with your irrelevant demands. This is silly people.
Vallee was mentioned in the specific context. This was not and is not a discussion about Vallee. This is a thread about BA claims.

Nice try but it's not that simple Factoid. The premise that astronomers see less UFOs than they should is intact. You're just nitting on the BA's abduction example and making the erroneous argument that his 'off the top of his head' figure negates his and our entire premise. It doesn't. The fact that astronomers don't see as many UFOs as they should is old news and something I've mentioned in debates long before the May edition of S & T hit the stands.Actually I wanted to hear why you thought his meta-physical nonsense was relevant here. I saw no such correlation.You are the one that first brought up Vallee Factoid. You cited him more than once. As far as the BA's article, have you read it? His argument about astronomers seeing less UFOs is just common sense. I won't presume to speak for the BA but there's a good chance you and I are more familiar with the nuances of the UFO phenomena than he is. He just knows, like I do, that more astronomers should be seeing UFOs if there's anything non-conventional re: this so-called phenomena.Hey, I didn't introduce him here .. you did. And let's be honest .. you waved Vallee like a pennant but basically said nothing about him. I've enlightened others as to this woowoo and his hokum better than you did.
And since I'm in agreement with the BA, here I am. My arguments are my own however Factoid.

Edited to add last Factoid's last sentence that I initially missed.

Your argument is the same as BA’s.
Thus, it is just as invalid as his, but that is fine.
Anyone has a right to fudge the data and then build a glass house on it.
But others have a right to throw rocks at this glass house and enjoy the
sound of braking glass. I’ll let you make the last post as you seem to
have a need to beat on the dead horse.

You overestimate your accomplishments here Factoid. The only dead horse I saw beaten was your fixation on the BA's abduction figures. The larger issue, indeed the only issue, that of astronomers seeing less UFOs than they should, hasn't been discredited at all. I've also noticed you've conveniently ignored all our requests to produce the "solid data" you kept alluding to prior to your fixation of the BA's abduction numbers.

I don`t want to put oil on the fire .
Here is another "hot" subject mostly associated to the UFO`s phenomena.

FBI
Animal Mutilation Project
128 pages

These records contain accounts of animal mutilations which were discovered in various states during the late 1970's. Over the years, several theories have been expounded to explain the mutilations, including UFOs, satanic cults, pranksters, unknown government agencies, or natural predators. The FBI entered the case when 15 mutilations occurred in New Mexican Indian country. The investigation was negative with respect to identifying the individuals responsible.

http://foia.fbi.gov/ufoanim.htm

Maybe the aliens are using an Infinite Probability Drive, which is why astronomers never see them.

__________________
"Most editorials are written by people that love to argue but got kicked off debate team for not making any sense." -Seanbaby

I think animal mutilations are bull. Sorry, couldn't resist. Seriously, I think these "mutilations" are just another facet of woowoo sensationalism, often tied into the UFO mythos. I'm not saying that animals aren't found missing body parts but I don't think it's a result of alien or government dissection. My opinion is that most can be explained by predators although pranks or cults certainly are possible explanations. One of the things most of these stories describe is the lack of blood around the incision(s) which overlooks the fact that, when discovered, most of these animals had been dead for some time and hearts tend to stop pumping blood at death.

Please speak sense.

Your remarks are about as confusing as your post.

The very basic problem with UFOs is that there just isn't any reliable data because what people have seen they weren't able to identify to begin with (sort of a catch 22). Celestial events, aircraft, black projects, earth lights etc. are all lumped into one catagory and it becomes impossible to know exactly what is being catalogued! Astronomers probably see UFOs infrequently because they are able to identify many things that most people simply haven't any experience with. This issue of identification makes scientific study of UFOs nearly impossible.

Now, I tend to think there's a prosaic explanation for most UFOs but some may be something yet unknown to us. However, to jump on the ET explanation as the ultimate "answer" to the UFO question is very much jumping to conclusions. One can debate back and forth until the proverbial cows come home but it won't change the fact that there is no proof that UFOs are alien spacecraft or that aliens have found their way to earth in any manner. One can suspect and/or believe this is the case but no one has yet to prove it.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

What I think HUb' said to you...

There was a class to be had but the room was locked. As a result, the class was conducted out in the 'hall.'
HUb' wants you to do this.

In other words - take it outside.

I could be wrong I suppose, milli360 is better at this than me.

So then anyone who shares the same argument as BA must be wrong.....

Fortunately people have differrent opinions due to differrent backgrounds and life experiences, they make their minds up based on these. To imply that different people have the same argument means that their argument is invalid is the same thing as saying "I don't accept the argument because I don't understand it" or "all the people with the same argument don't understand it". Of the two which is more likely?

The only valid exeption to the above is if the the one making the claim has some "outside" knowledge the others don't, which you don't seem to have.

Do a simple test, place yourself in the opposite corner and try to defend BA's points. Then compare the simplicity and logic of one view point to the other. Try to do it un-biased, it may give you a new perspective.

Regards,

__________________
MrObvious

Here an interesting report who can be usefull for further discussion.It adress all the points you have made.

Beginning in November of 1992, the Fyffe Police Department has been conducting an investigation into unexplained cattle mutilations in cooperation with neighboring police and law enforcement agencies.

http://www.mufor.org/fyffe.htm

Some points of interest
edited added this paragraph
-To date over thirty (30) animals have been discovered dead in pastures with various internal and external organs missing. The incisions examined on there animals exhibit a precise surgical cutting. In many of the cases there has been evidence of extremely high heat at the tissue excisions. The absence of physical evidence adds to the mystery at the majority of mutilation sites...

-Though many animals have been found in soft pasture land, and in many cases mud, there have been no footprints, tracks, or marks found anywhere near the mutilated animals.

-In over ten thousand (10,000) reported cases of livestock mutilations reported since 1967, the organs and tissue taken are always the same.

All of this has been accomplished on these thousands of animals with no evidence of blood present at the incision --in some cases the entire blood supply of the animal had been drained <<Without any trace of blood on or around the animal <<<Emphase is mine.

-Throughout the documented history of these cattle mutilations, no one has ever been charged or prosecuted with the crime. No one has ever been caught.

-Some say it's predator animals like coyotes or buzzards. Many people believe it's the work of a satanic cult or of college students. Nevertheless evidence collected and analyzed by Ph.D. scientists of material collected from local animals and pastures clearly rules out both groups.
Remember
Though many animals have been found in soft pasture land, and in many cases mud, there have been no footprints, tracks, or marks found anywhere near the mutilated animals.

Well, in my part of the world if you want a bit of a cow you go to the butchers and buy it, if you want it in bulk go to the slaughterhouse and get it wholesale.

Why bother with all the messing around in fields at the dead of night?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Hmm. :-k

If such exhaustive investigation and/or scientific study has been performed on these alleged incidents, why is it that a diverse array of search parameters via Google only returns only UFO and paranormal sites?

Where is the empirical data which corroborates claims of paranormal or extraterrestrial involvement?

I'm just not mooooved by anecdote. :wink:

i know i do, especailly when i'm trying to figure out where to point the eyepiece

OK, on the Yahoo! desktop there's a news clip about mexican pilots filming 11 UFOs. I can't open the file from where I am so I have no idea what's being shown, if anybody can open it, open it and let's see what it is or what it may be.

I've been really busy lately but I ran across this thread and read the first page. Forgive me if it was already covered. I'll try to catch up for subsequent posts but I gotta run.

I have to agree with Stan Friedman's questioning of the BA's example (edit: from the first post on this thread). I don't have any statistics, but the percentage of amateur astronomers in the general public has to be microscopically low. Conservatively, 99.99% of the population would probably not be considered amateur astronomers (being defined as someone with a reasonably good telescope, or an avid sky-watcher, that is interested and knowledgeable in astronomy as a hobby). I would think that we would see the same percentage of observations made among amateurs that we see in the general public. If ETUFO's exist, then witnessing them would be a random event, with no better odds for any particular group. I can also argue that someone looking through a telescope has a much narrower field of view than someone looking up at the sky with the naked eye. An astronomer (amateur or pro) can more correctly identify natural objects such as Venus, Mars, comets, meteors, etc..., but they should provide close to the same statistics for viewing more "unnatural" shapes and maneuvers such as described in UFO reports. Saying that if ETUFO's exist, amateur astronomers should see them more, is kind of like saying that employees for ping-pong ball manufacturers should win at lotto more. I understand the difference with my example, so there's no need to point it out, but my point is that the relatively small sampling of UFO observations is randomly distributed across the world population, and a person's hobby or occupation shouldn't make them more susceptible to those random observations, especially when those people make up such a tiny fraction of the population. Whew, talk about a run-on sentence....

Later!

Adrin: First of all, unlike UFOs, my knowledge of cattle mutilations is, at best, just cursory. I've always considered this more of an "urban legend" than anything else. The logic of aliens or governmental agencies having to dissect animals escapes me for 2 reasons. First, why? and secondly, since these mutilations are supposedly still occurring, it would appear that ET can't get it's act together. If the government wanted to study cattle, this black helicopter stuff seems unnecessarily cloak and dagger. Anyway I'll play devils-advocate and address some of the points of interest you've posted:The Rommel Report (via Wolverine's link) disputes the "surgical" precision of many of the incisions. I haven't read the whole thing, it's possible it addresses the "high heat" issue as well. I won't even venture a guess here but I don't think it was a laser-scalpel!What if it rains after the animals were killed?This would tend to favor the predator hypothesis IMO.I've already mentioned how the heart stops pumping blood, Wolverine's link also mentions how blood settles in these animals after they've been dead a while. I would have to see official documentation to believe that the animal's "entire blood supply" was drained. The two factors I mentioned could very easily have led the people first on the scene to come to that conclusion.This isn't really significant if you ask me. If it was predators, that's not surprising. If it was a sick prank or some kind of ritual all that means is the people involved were able to elude detection. IIRC most of these dead animals are found in out of the way places.I have a problem with this. I can't see how someone can completely "rule out" predators or human causation. This sounds like Linda Moulton Howe stuff.

The Mexican UFO video is being talked about in GA and another thread here. One or both of them have links to the video. I looked at the video and, while not a photographic expert, came away with the feeling these "UFOs" could be reflections. Notice the "pairing effect." Hopefully more will come out regarding this "incident."

I disagree. If ETUFOs exist, it make more sense that people whose profession/hobby entails looking at the sky would report more of these things than someone who doesn't. I don't know if you consider yourself an amateur astronomer Hank but I consider myself one and can tell you that one doesn't spend the whole night with their eyes glued to a scope. In my case, naked eye and binocular observation comprises the majority of my star gazing.

What about this,
Only three of the objects showed up on the plane's radar.

They appeared to be flying at an altitude of about 3,500 metres and allegedly surrounded the air force jet

Lt. Vazquez insisted there was no way to alter the recorded images.

The plane's captain, Major Magdaleno Castanon, said the military jets chased the lights ?and I believe they could feel we were pursuing them.?

When the jets stopped following the objects, they disappeared, he said.

I don`t think police forces have a web site where they publish report of their investigations whatever it is.This report was publicly released during a Press Conference - Fyffe, Alabama

Stay on target, folks. The Mexican UFOs already have threads here. Cattle mutilations are not astronomy. Let's stick with my claim about amateur astronomers.

Factoid, you accuse me of fudging the data. This is a very serious claim, and you better be prepared to back it up. I have not seen anything you have said to bring any real weight to this accusation. I do not care about the abduction scenarios; that was simply an example about how common UFO reports are. I suggest we drop that from this conversation, as it has no bearing on it.

Now, so you don't take any more chances of misinterpreting my position, here it is again in more detail.

1) According to Michael Bennett, president of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (a noted society supporting amateur astronomy), there are 2-300,000 amateur astronomers in the US. This would mean people who have a familiarity with the night sky.

2) This represents 0.001 of the total population, or 0.1%.

3) Let's say the average amateur spends an average of 5 hours per week observing the sky. I would consider this to be about right, or perhaps low. That means they spend roughly 250 hours per year observing the sky, which in turn means 250 x 200,000 = 50 million man-hours per year of amateurs watching the sky. Probably more, but I'll stick with that for now.

4) The population of the US is about 250 million. To equal the amateur observing time, each person would have to watch the sky for 1/5 of an hour per year. Clearly, some people spend more time than that, but many spend less. This is personal experience, through years of dealing with an interested but not necessarily educated (about astronomy) public. Most people, for example, are shocked when they learn that satellites can be seen easily, every night. This indicates they don't spend much time looking up, and when they do, they are not all that familiar with what they see.

5) People have lots of different professions. Even grouping people broadly, the number of man hours spent observing the sky is skewed toward amateurs as a group. Pilots, rangers, outdoorsman, etc. will also have large numbers, but I don't know those numbers. If someone has statistics, feel free to chime in. But that's not important: what is are the numbers for amateur astronomers compared to "average" people.

6) Therefore, if there is some event that occurs in the sky, an amateur astronomer is more likely to see it than your average person, and is more likely to see it than most other groups.

7) Therefore, if UFOs are not simply misinterpreted mundane events (Venus, Iridium flares, glints off of balloons/airplanes, bright stars near the horizon, etc.), then amateurs as a group would see more of them than your average person.

8) Amateurs do report UFOs, but rarely. I have received emails from UFO supporters, for lack of a better term, who say they have several reports from amateur astronomers. Several, out of hundreds of thousands of amateurs patrolling the skies. That's slim pickings.

9) The reporting issue is your speculation, not mine. I know amateurs, lots of them. I will state it again: if they saw anything they could not explain in the sky, they would tell everyone within earshot. There is no social pressure on them to not report. Far from it. If a real spaceship were to appear in the sky over a star party, everyone, and I mean everyone would be watching it and talking about it. Word would spread like wildfire.

10) This has never happened, to my knowledge. The conclusion is therefore obvious: at least most of the UFOs reported by people not familiar with the sky are mundane phenomena being misinterpreted. And even people who are familiar with the sky can be fooled; I was once. So it is even more likely that even if an amateur reported a UFO, it may still have been something mundane under unusually odd circumstances.

So I stand by my conclusion: if UFOs are not misinterpreted mundane phenomena, then amateurs should should see more than just about anyone. They don't, which indicates UFOs are overwhelmingly misinterpreted phenomena. I am not saying every single one is, or even saying anything at all about the extraterrestrial hypothesis. I am saying that most UFO sightings are mundane objects.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

Having just seen a conspiracy theory debunking TV show (yes, just a TV show), the results of a recent poll indicated that 48% of US Citizens believe in UFOs (of the alien kind); 27% believe that aliens have already landed and are living among us and, 2% claim to have been abducted by aliens. That, according to the show represents 3.7 million adult Americans who claim an abduction incident.

I will leave it for the active contributors to this thread to interpret these results. I'm sure their will be a variety of views.

__________________
Ignorance is the night of the mind, but a night without moon and star. - Confucius

Try and do that and not get caught!