It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So are you making the case that we evolved this ability so we can be entertained? Or that aliens implanted us with this flaw to trick us.
Again, that's the concept behind film, video, and animation, and it is an intelligently designed illusion.
Are you trying to make the case that the O'Hare UFO was a three-dimensional holographic laser projection, à la "Project Blue Beam"? Otherwise, nature can't do what you think it can.
MaximRecoil
And yes, I know the story behind this, but regardless of that, it was a UFO sighting, and it still hasn't been 100% positively identified.
JimOberg
neoholographic
reply to post by JimOberg
..When you have eyewitness accounts from high ranking Government officials, Police Officers, Astronauts, Pilots and more talking about human levitation and Elvis sightings then I suggest you start a thread about these things and go over the evidence...
You're on. Name me one 'UFO sighting by an astronaut' you would stake your reputation as a reasonable human and good investgator on.
FireMoon
JimOberg
neoholographic
reply to post by JimOberg
..When you have eyewitness accounts from high ranking Government officials, Police Officers, Astronauts, Pilots and more talking about human levitation and Elvis sightings then I suggest you start a thread about these things and go over the evidence...
You're on. Name me one 'UFO sighting by an astronaut' you would stake your reputation as a reasonable human and good investgator on.
On the other hand, let's name an astronaut you have spent an inordinate amount of time and effort in trying to trash his reputation. With the greatest of respect Jim from reading the drivel you often post about the subject, your understanding of the human condition stretches from cod flawed back of a cereal box psychology to outright rubbish.
Another objection that often comes to mind regards consensus. If a bus is
hurdling down the road, any normal observer will agree that they indeed see a
bus hurdling down the road. So, since we all agree about the bus, since there is
consensus, doesn’t that mean that we are all seeing the same truth?
But consensus does not logically imply that we are all seeing the truth. It
simply implies that we have similar perceptual interfaces, and that the rules of
visual construction that we use are similar.
What Mark et al. find is that true perceptions are not, in general, more fit.
In most cases of interest, an organism that sees none of the truth, but instead sees
abstract symbols related to utility, drives the truth perceivers to swift extinction.
Natural selection does not usually favor true perceptions. It generally drives
them to extinction.
One reason is that perceptual information does not come free. There are
costs in time and energy for each bit of information that perception reports about
the environment. For every calorie an organism spends on perception, it must
kill something and eat it to get the calorie. As a result, natural selection
pressures perception to be quick and cheap. Getting a detailed description of the
truth is too expensive in time and energy. It is also not usually relevant, since
utility, not truth, is what perception needs to report.
ZetaRediculian
reply to post by MaximRecoil
Tell me how long you need to "witness" this before you learn it:
zero seconds. see you keep switching the requirements from learning how to write to shape recognition? You didn't answer my question at all and just went on to the next intellectually dishonest Prozac straw man. Well its effective at avoiding an actual discussion.
No absolutely not. I said I have no idea what it was. I am just talking about different ways we perceive things and you translate that into some anti-ufo nonsense I have.
I honestly find it quite odd that people get so bent out of shape just by talking about perception and the way people misperceive. I am not trying to establish grounds for reasonable doubt. That's your game that you think I am playing. I am encouraging people to not be ignorant when they talk about perception. Specific to this case, I am looking at possibilities. If it applies, it applies if it doesn't it doesn't. Why would you discourage an open discussion about this?
Honestly, your example sucks. You are trying to translate this into UFO sightings and it doesn't apply in the slightest. I don't think we will get anywhere. I had hopes you could have an honest discussion this time around. Guess not. Here I will state what you want so you can throw rotten tomatoes at me.
You have actually shown me why blanket statements are effective and used so much around here.
You have essentially a circular argument.
Trying to get to what "witness testimony" actually means is going to be impossible.
You are missing it. In sports psychology, its called "visualization". We "see" motion very effectively all the time without there being motion. It happens quite often in nature. All you need is fragments of information and your brain translates it automatically as a complete picture. Its quite impressive actually. And tis is EXACTLY what is happening in the examples you provided.
I don't. Please clue me in. I would consider this intellectual dishonesty.
"Yes, I know this could be completely wrong because there is a whole backstory that I am aware of that others might not be so lets not bring that up"
So are you making the case that we evolved this ability so we can be entertained? Or that aliens implanted us with this flaw to trick us.
People mistake natural illusions for real things all the time. Like someone saw a cat in a tree once but it turned out to be a shadow. Do you go outside ever? Are you implying that people don't make this kind of mistake ever? How many different examples do you need?
Adding more straw man arguments is just adding more straw man arguments. Its a straw man so don't even try.
I really encourage that you read something other than UFO books.
JimOberg
MaximRecoil
And yes, I know the story behind this, but regardless of that, it was a UFO sighting, and it still hasn't been 100% positively identified.
I will politely try to avoid falling off my chair in uncontrollable laughter.
THIS is your best 'astronaut evidence' that UFO reports reflect a fundamentally inexplicable phenomenon unknown to science?
Please, get serious and try again.
First of all, why did you break your reply up into so many separate posts?
Also, it has already been established that you don't know what the bolded terms mean, so consider them dismissed out of hand.
And I haven't "switched any requirements" at all, much less have I done it repeatedly. Learning to write involves seeing shapes, remembering them, and then duplicating them. A circle can represent the letter "O", the number "0", a major part of the letters Q and C, and, as luck would have it, a commonly reported UFO shape, making it particularly relevant to this discussion, unlike the Asian characters you posted.
including an alien spaceship but an illusion you find offensive? why?
You claim you "have no idea what it was", yet you've offered ideas about what it was, the most recent idea being a natural illusion (with zero support for that idea, I might add).
ZetaRediculian
reply to post by MaximRecoil
Here is an abstract by Donald D. Hoffman
The Construction of Visual Reality
This gives a more current view of perception than you seem have. It makes for some interesting reading and seems to be in line with what I am trying to get across. Please, if you have any articles, papers or whatever that support what your position is with this topic, I would be very interested in reading them because I have never come across anything like what you are describing in the last 15 years. Honestly, if you do have something for me to look at other than NACRAP reports, I am interested. Thanks.
Another objection that often comes to mind regards consensus. If a bus is
hurdling down the road, any normal observer will agree that they indeed see a
bus hurdling down the road. So, since we all agree about the bus, since there is
consensus, doesn’t that mean that we are all seeing the same truth?
But consensus does not logically imply that we are all seeing the truth. It
simply implies that we have similar perceptual interfaces, and that the rules of
visual construction that we use are similar.
What Mark et al. find is that true perceptions are not, in general, more fit.
In most cases of interest, an organism that sees none of the truth, but instead sees
abstract symbols related to utility, drives the truth perceivers to swift extinction.
Natural selection does not usually favor true perceptions. It generally drives
them to extinction.
One reason is that perceptual information does not come free. There are
costs in time and energy for each bit of information that perception reports about
the environment. For every calorie an organism spends on perception, it must
kill something and eat it to get the calorie. As a result, natural selection
pressures perception to be quick and cheap. Getting a detailed description of the
truth is too expensive in time and energy. It is also not usually relevant, since
utility, not truth, is what perception needs to report.
I'm not missing anything. In sports we do not "see motion very effectively all the time without there being motion"; when something like that happens it is known as a hallucination. We are able to predict/anticipate where an object in motion is headed based on its trajectory, but this has nothing to do with seeing motion where there is none. As I said, sports would be impossible if people of sound mind saw real objects in motion, when in fact they were stationary.
MaximRecoil
Fortunately, UFO sightings often fall into that area of good eyewitness reliability, because the most important things (nature of movement and general shape) are so basic.
1What does this have to do with anything?
ZetaRediculian
reply to post by MaximRecoil
First of all, why did you break your reply up into so many separate posts?
Why do you complain about the way I post so much? First it was editing now I break them up to much? Jeez. Why are your posts so friggen long and why do jump all over the place with topics instead of staying on one thing?
"As the witness approached 50 Highway and 47 Highway he saw a large, triangular craft with lights pointing down over the Wal-Mart that was traveling at approximately 25-30 mph. The witness said that the very bright lights on the object pointed downward, but did not light up the ground, seeming to stop approximately 100 feet up.The craft was approximately 500 above the ground."
www.examiner.com...
thesearchfortruth
reply to post by draknoir2
Draknoir2...
Fair point, though the basics of that sighting were fairly consistant, at least among the officers...
As a side note, a new witness came forward in that case in 2012....
"As the witness approached 50 Highway and 47 Highway he saw a large, triangular craft with lights pointing down over the Wal-Mart that was traveling at approximately 25-30 mph. The witness said that the very bright lights on the object pointed downward, but did not light up the ground, seeming to stop approximately 100 feet up.The craft was approximately 500 above the ground."
www.examiner.com...
I tend to be skeptical of late-comer testimony long after the event, what with the popularity of UFO shows now.
thesearchfortruth
reply to post by draknoir2
Draknoir,
thank you for the reply...
I tend to be skeptical of late-comer testimony long after the event, what with the popularity of UFO shows now.
A reasonable precaution.
Regardless, we should not dismiss such testimony without giving it a fair look.
Despite the unusual inconsistencies in the descriptions of the object, all but one described it as triangular shaped. Personally, I wouldn´t be concerned with the number of lights or windows on a UFO if it was hovering just ¨500 feet¨ above the ground. Would you?