Nobody with good sense is going to argue that photos can be faked. But that doesn't mean that all photos are faked, sigh. If I understand correctly, especially in the pre-digital age, photographic experts could determine with reasonable certainty that a negative was authentic, and many of the unexplained photo-documented cases passed such examinations with flying colors.

In my opinion, the will to -not believe- is as intellectually distasteful as the will to believe--they're really just two sides of the same coin. Given the prevalence of that sentiment, and the reality that we'll probably never get a chunk of whatever is zigzaging around in our sky, I'm starting to think that a squadron of alien craft could buzz every major city in the world, and we'd still be debating whether or not they're a real phenomenon...

](*,)

I'd contend it has nothing to do with belief (or disbelief), it's a matter of evidence. No compelling empirical evidence exists to suggest Earth's visitation by extraterrestrials nor substantiate the extraordinary claims submitted to that end. It's just that simple, and belief is not required.

Don't you mean can't?

Not all photos are faked. Some are clouds/smoke, some are airplanes, some are helicopters, some are balloons.

A authentic negative doesn't prove that the object you're seeing was not a tossed up tennis ball, a paper outcut taped to a window, or any other similar thing.

You said it. Believe.

Oh, you mean like how we're still debating if men really walked on the moon?

Some people won't believe no matter what evidence you give them, others will believe things if you just tell them "someone told me".

You're on a scientific bulletin board, with people who have science in their minds, and you're entertaining the thoughts of aliens buzzing around in our skies. Not speaking for everyone else, but I'd say nobody here denies the possibility, but sees too many problems for it to actually be true.

UFOs? Yes. Experimental Military Crafts? Yes. Alien Visitors? No.

Exactly the case. We can't 100% certain about anything. But we can talk reasonably about the probabilities. And we certainly can examine what is offerred as "evidence."

UFOlogists are typically indignant that they can't get skeptics to simply believe that pictures of fuzzy objects in the sky are extraterrestrial spacecraft. But all skeptics are asking for is actual evidence that shows that fuzzy object to actually be an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

The bottom line is that true skeptics have an open mind on the subject, while believers do not. #-o

__________________
Anything may be possible, but not everything actually is. Some things are true and some things are not. Wisdom is knowing the difference.

[quote="algorithms"]yes, "true skeptics" may have an open mind. but an open mind regarding this issue involves taking the available anedoctal and physical evidence and trace paralels in order to find answers. the reality of these aerial phenomenons does produce noticeable paralels, that is, the same objects displaying identical flying patterns are witnessed in different areas of the globe, often times in short periods of time. another trait of these aerial phenomenons is that in some instances the objects observed seem to act in an intelligent manner, interacting with the witnesses in some way. there are reports of airline pilots which show that apparently some UFO phenomena displays non random interaction.

this is the information a true skeptic should focus on in order to formulate an opinion. so, i think that forging UFO pictures just shows that it is somewhat easy, given the natural background, to simulate the flight of any given object, but it doesnt give any substancial help in the effort of explaining the origins of the anedoctal observations.

Copyrighted text deleted by The Bad Astronomer

LINK

What's with posting so much, or all, of an article that the Independent News owns and even charges people to read?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0....

Sorry all, haven't been around much lately ("on the road again"), and am not current with discussions but I felt I should post this link:

The UFO Phenomenon: Seeing is Believing.

While I watch very little tv, I'll plan to tune in and see how balanced the reporting is.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Outcast, posting copyrighted materials here is a serious violation of the FAQ. Do not do it again.

The problem is that the "data" is all anedotal and there is no physical evidence to speak of. What this means is that its not appropriate to conclude anything about this "aerial phenomena." All one can say is that someone saw something unusual for which there is no immediate explanation. We simply have no reason whatsoever to conclude, or even suppose that what people observe as "UFOs" are extraterresttrials.

The problem with anecdotal accounts, even by the most credible observers, is that they cannot be independently verified. We can't verify if the observer is accurately describing what was observed or not. And, even if we can, we still can't verify that what was observed came from outer space. The simple fact is that, to date, not a single UFO sighting has ever been independently affirmed to be a extraterrestrial spacecraft. So long as that is the case, keeping an open mind means avoiding rash conclusions.

"Tracing parallels" doesn't cut it. What's missing is independently verifiable evidence of something that is unequivocally extraterrestrial in origin. Until and unless this quality of evidence is secured, one must accept that there are other plausible explanations for what was observed that may have nothing to do with extraterrestrials.

__________________
Anything may be possible, but not everything actually is. Some things are true and some things are not. Wisdom is knowing the difference.

I never said it was Wolverine—unless I’ve gone mad, that sentence denounces both belief and disbelief equally. There are lots of ‘disbelievers’ around here, which is what I was pointing out. Neither approach, believing or disbelieving, is meaningful.

Evidence. Empirical evidence. Credible evidence, independently verifiable evidence, anecdotal evidence, physical evidence…on and on—these terms are being thrown around as if they have meaning. But every time I ask for a definition of what the scientific community would find to be ‘credible evidence’ that something remarkable is happening in our sky from time to time, it’s dodged or side-stepped. And I’m not even arguing that there’s sufficient information to draw conclusions, I’m only asking ‘what evidence would suffice to merit a focused scientific investigation?’

Photos, footage, multiple witness accounts, radar/visual cases, physical traces like radiation burns and desiccated earth—how much more, I ask you, do we need to have before we relent with the mockery and finally knuckle down and admit that there may well be something extraordinary going on?

(Emphasis added for clarity).

I can’t tell who you’re addressing Johnno, since you’re not refuting anything I’ve actually said, but your post brings up a logical contradiction that deserves attention. You say that you accept the fact that some UFO’s demonstrate advanced technological characteristics, and you attribute these sightings to experimental military craft…and at the same time, you admit the possibility that some of these craft may not originate at Earth and deny that they there might be alien visitors…because of the hand-wavy ‘too many problems for it to actually be true.’ Hmm.

Well, we’ve addressed many of these ‘problems’ you mention, but none of them turn out to hold water. The Drake equation generally gives us a result that leaves us as the new kids on the block, galactically, so science favors that we have intelligent neighbors. We’ve seen our own race push into space rapidly over a mere five decades, so we know it can be done, and that we’ll get better at it along the way. And we’ve looked at the ‘huge distances’ issue, to discover that relativity permits travel between stars many light years away, in a matter of days of subjective time. And, we know that some forms of energy, like fusion, could provide the necessary power for interstellar journeys…even if it is slightly ahead of our time.

So under analytical scrutiny, your dismissal of –the possibility- of alien visitors as one reasonable explanation for extraordinarily-maneuvering sights in the sky, crumbles. In other words, you –disbelieve- it, which is not scientific or skeptical.

Nobody here is a UFOlogist, so let's focus on the people here and what they have to say, and not argue with unrepresented points of view.

I don't see anyone here arguing that we -must attribute- these sightings to ET's, they're just not ruling it out. I've asked only for a proper, scientific investigation…because we don't have sufficient evidence to draw sound conclusions. We have to be prepared to Get that evidence. But it's still important to know what 'actual evidence' would constitute 'proof' of each of our possible explanations. What, barring a chunk of alien technology, would convince -you- of the presence of an ET craft in our atmosphere?

Who here is a 'believer?' I see one group of people arguing that more investigation needs to be done, and another group saying there's nothing to investigate, and one or two people saying the argument is moot without 'physical evidence,' which is, as yet, unclarified.

So let's focus on clear and logical arguments, and not grand-stand against 'UFOlogists.' I think both sides of this debate disapprove of jumping to premature conclusions to sell books...let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.


‘Anecdotal’ means ‘a story,’ and we have a Lot more than that, as I listed above. What do you consider ‘physical evidence?’ Do you dismiss radar confirmation, photos and film footage, and trace evidence?

Nobody is asking anybody to reach that conclusion, as far as I see here. We need to actively attempt to –gather- more evidential, scientific data. The nature of the reports indicates that the ‘sit back and wait til one falls on the lawn’ approach isn’t going to cut it. We need an active, investigative approach to get more answers. Then, maybe, we’ll be able to start forming conclusions.

How about independent confirmation by someone across town who sees the same thing, or radar confirmation, or trace evidence confirmation? The real question here is: How hard do we –try- to research and confirm or discredit reports like these? There are no resources dedicated to the issue. That’s the first problem.

Nobody here is arguing those ‘rash conclusions,’ as far as I can see. It seems like when someone around here says ‘well, it –could be- extraterrestrial,’ they’re heard as saying ‘they –are- extraterrestrial.’ Let’s fix that.

“…independently verifiable evidence of something that is unequivocally extraterrestrial in origin.” Wow, that’s asking a lot. That’s like asking for a piece of a black hole to prove that singularities exist…surely there’s a less drastic evidential standard we could pursue.

We do accept that other plausible explanations may exist. Do you accept that the ETH may be a plausible explanation?

Not at all, what algorithms posted is perfectly reasonable and it's the way that science "works".

Not a fair analogy...we can observe physical effects related to black holes.

Sure there is. But don't call it science, and don't expect it to be taken seriously.

sorry, didnt realize it was copyrighted. i got the text from another BBS where it was posted. sorry.

there is independently verified observable physical effects created by the interaction of UFOs with human witnesses, the article i posted (allthough copyrighted, which i didnt know because i got the text from somewhere else) had some examples of such evidence. so I DO expect such evidence to be taken seriously, the fact that it is not just shows how politics get in the way of science and how the media has worked hard to make such events ridiculed.

in fact, the investigative work scourge proposes could (and should) very well be made under strict scientific principles. i wouldnt expect nothing less.

That's not true. Scientists arrive at hypotheses, and -then- formulate experiments to gather evidence to test them...the 'independently verifiable evidence' is the last step in the process, not the first.

Also, note that the phrase 'unequivocally extraterrestrial in origin' one, supposes that we're debating an extraterrestrial conclusion we haven't arrived at yet, and two, is misleading and nonspecific. Viz, define what 'unequivocally extraterrestrial' could possibly be. Even the question of what would constitute 'independently verifiable evidence' in a situation like this has, still, been left unanswered.

What we've suggested is a test of the ETH, which is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, by conducting a serious investigation with the requisite tools. Only after gathering reliable data with the proper instruments and methods can we clearly assess what may be the cause of the most interesting reported observations. Your suggestion that the proof comes first is clearly flawed--science starts with the question, not the answer.

And some people have seen physical traces left on the ground, and have suffered what appear to be radiation burns after witnessing an unexplained aerial event. There are also radar and visual cases, which are ‘physical effects’ in the broad sense.

Shall we selectively dismiss all evidence that doesn't neatly fit into conventional scientific models of reality? No. It was a mistake to ridicule witnesses of ball lighting before it was accepted science, and we should not repeat such mistakes.

So you're saying that we can't seriously investigate any issue that isn't already established through irrefutable physical evidence? Would you eliminate the entire hypothetical and experimental steps of empirical science, then?

I don't think so--this kind of dogmatic denial of even reasonable discussion is a disservice to the process of inquiry, and can only impede the acquisition of understanding.

This goes back to the "what do you consider evidence of ET visititors" argument. The mundane explanation for this sort of evidence is ignored be ET proponents...and mundane explainations must be eliminated before the ET idea can be considered.

The problem with UFO investigations is that the conclusion is known before any investigations have taken place...this is "cart before the horse" reasoning, and is not how science works.