Chatroom
 

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > The Proving Grounds > Conspiracy Theories
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

   

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181 (permalink)  
Old 18-December-2008, 02:46 PM
astrophotographer's Avatar
astrophotographer astrophotographer is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 808
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbleburster View Post
'a ufo' (as you put it) 'some' ufos (approx 5% of those reported) do end up as 'unexplained' which leaves the possibility (at least to the open minded) that they may be controlled by some higher intelligence.
So, 5% of these reports can not be explained. This does not mean the reports indicate a "higher intelligence" as their source. The problem with UFO reports is they are filled with so many inaccuracies that this 5% could very well be reports that are unidentified simply because the reports are wildly inaccurate in some way.

About 10 years ago, I wrote one of my webpages regarding some satellite/rocket booster reentries and how witnesses misperceived the event. In almost all cases, there was a fraction of eyewitnesses who were wildly inaccurate in reporting what they saw. That being they stated they saw some sort of dark object behind the lights. The number varied from 5-30% with each case but it demonstrated some of the flawed reasoning behind the "unidentified" cases. For example, if only one witness saw one of these events and reported it as a dark object with lights and nobody ever presented the source so it could identified, that case would probably added to that 5% of cases that never are identified. It would be another mysterious event that indicated the presence of "structured craft operating under intelligent control" (A common phrase uttered by UFO proponents that don't want to say it is ET but by the very nature of the statement they imply it).

Again, it seems reasonable that the 5% you claim indicate a "higher intelligence" are populated with inaccurate details that prevent proper identification. Until there is evidence other than the anecdotal claims, potentially hoaxed photographs/videos, and untested physical traces, UFOs are always going to be viewed as probably misperceptions, hallucinations, hoaxes, etc. Better evidence is required and, so far, it does not look like there is any.
Reply With Quote
  #182 (permalink)  
Old 18-December-2008, 04:02 PM
captain swoop's Avatar
captain swoop captain swoop is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 8,697
Default

Quote:
ironically, after all the probes that humans have sent to mars, there is still one stubborn martian who wont even entertain the possibility of the existance of humans or human controlled 'ufos' - he just burries his head in the martian dust.... he goes by the name of 'jaycydonia' - who'd have thought it?
What evidence does this 'jaycydonia' have of these 'ufos'? If it's on a par with the evidence we have here on Earth then it's a reasonable position. Just to note that requiring evidence of something isn't burying your head or any other part in the dust.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #183 (permalink)  
Old 18-December-2008, 07:57 PM
NickW's Avatar
NickW NickW is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bandon, OR
Posts: 764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by captain swoop
Just to note that requiring evidence of something isn't burying your head or any other part in the dust.
In fact it is quite the opposite. I think taking anecdotal evidence and blurry pictures as good evidence is burying your head in the sand.
Reply With Quote
  #184 (permalink)  
Old 18-December-2008, 09:50 PM
mugaliens mugaliens is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 12,607
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
Guess what? I've seen tons of them. And I haven't had a psychological disturbance yet.
That you're aware of...

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What's good in new Scifi/Fantasy novels One Skunk Todd Small Media at Large 36 23-March-2007 07:30 PM
Arbitrary concepts of reality! DoctorDick Against the Mainstream 33 21-January-2003 05:27 PM
A REAL Bad Astronomer XoFFoX Against the Mainstream 142 16-September-2002 05:59 PM
Apollo 13 Hoax? SAMU Conspiracy Theories 209 24-November-2001 05:04 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0
©  2006 Bad Astronomy and Universe Today