Skeptic misses point behind UFO book

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
a reply to: EnPassant

I don't think so. As I have pointed out, hallucinations don't convincingly explain things because there are multiple witness accounts, landing traces etc.

Right, throw out the single witness cases.

No, you can't throw things out indiscriminately. Each aspect of the phenomenon supports the others. If, for example, multiple witness sightings have credibility it is reasonable to, in the most general way, extend that credibility to single witness sightings.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

I would include:

Radar returns with confirmed eyewitness visuals of the object, especially pilots who chased an object which they could see on radar and with their own eyes..

Another aspect of this is that most alien refuters tend to look at each case as explained by either an infinite number of known or not yet known earthly explanations vs. "aliens." Aliens doesn't necessarily mean one thing though. Why isn't it possible that more than one, perhaps many different species have developed beyond us, each with its own technologies that would give vastly different stories, statements or photographic evidence? Even if there is only one civilization different factions could be at different stages. There isn't one "blanket" alien explanation to refute. I think it's rather obtuse to assume that the infinite earthly explanations are only countering one possible form of alternative.

a reply to: EnPassant

Well said. A lot to chew with that back and forth. Thanks.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

Why pre-1970?

originally posted by: TheBolt
Another aspect of this is that most alien refuters tend to look at each case as explained by either an infinite number of known or not yet known earthly explanations vs. "aliens." Aliens doesn't necessarily mean one thing though. Why isn't it possible that more than one, perhaps many different species have developed beyond us, each with its own technologies that would give vastly different stories, statements or photographic evidence? Even if there is only one civilization different factions could be at different stages. There isn't one "blanket" alien explanation to refute. I think it's rather obtuse to assume that the infinite earthly explanations are only countering one possible form of alternative.

Yes, in fact there are quite a few different alien races and/or species coming here or staying here, with vastly different agendas; some good some bad, some relatively indifferent. I've seen several different types of aliens working together during abductions and "processing" procedures. By some gov't whistleblower accounts, there are as many as fifty different aliens that we know of.

The Chile government are not afraid of Ufo disclosure, possible because their population will react much more maturely to the reality than the Western populations.

www.mirror.co.uk...

Chile UFO: Government confirm mysterious object is NOT 'made by man'


17:18, 16 April 2015
By Kara O'Neill


Authorities revealed that they do not recognise the strange object which was captured hovering in the skies





Chilian miners spot this UFO and officials are stumped by the footage



A UFO that was sighted in Chile is 'not a known object made by man', according to the country's government.

Officials released the footage after completing a thorough investigation and have announced in a report that the mysterious object is not one they recognise.

They confirmed that the silver disc seen in the clip was approximately 10 metres in diameter and performed with vertical and horizontal movements that no other aircraft can do, according to Chilean media reports.




CEEFA Chile Government

Footage: Video clips have been released which capture the UFO on camera


Scientists at the Centre for the Study of Anomalous Ariel Phenomena (CEFAA) confirmed: "It is not any weather phenomenon or any other known object made by man."

The footage was originally shot in April 2013 by miners who were working at the Collahuasi copper mine in north Chile.

Initially, they chose to keep the clip under wraps, for fear of being ridiculed, but later showed the clip to one of their bosses who insisted on sending copies to the CEFAA in February 2014.




CEEFA Chile Government

Spotted: The mysterious object was seen by workers above a Chilean mine


The witnesses, who have chosen to remain anonymous, revealed that the object hovered in the sky for over an hour, and did not make any sound.

According to reports published in July 2014, the Chilean Meterological Office confirmed that the sky was clear on the day in question and now lenticular clouds (saucer shaped cloud formations) were recorded.

José Lay, director of international affairs at CEFAA also excluded the possibility that the UFO could be a drone.




CEEFA Chile Government

Disk: The suspiciously shaped UFO is not 'made by man' according to reports


"People in that area are well aware of the existence of drones.

"Fishing companies use drones and [they] make much noise. This was definitely not a drone."

Officials also ruled out experimental aircraft, weather balloons, or other military drills that could explain the incident.

Earlier this week a 'shape changing' UFO was caught on camera in Columbia by a respected newspaper editor.

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Why pre-1970?

The further you go back, the harder it is to attribute sightings to classified projects.

Some that I am more familiar with

Madagascar in 54, double daylight sighting
Westall in 66, daylight sighting of anti-grav drone
Ravenna in 66, cat and mouse chase

IMO, the evidence for the Belgium case is as good as there is, but there is a chance, by 1989, its just a military black project.

a reply to: EnPassant

. If, for example, multiple witness sightings have credibility it is reasonable to, in the most general way, extend that credibility to single witness sightings.

I dont follow at all, any fantastic event that is observed is going to be more believable the more witnesses you have.

BUT lets say something crazy happened, like all the solvable cases turned out to be multiple witness cases, maybe we should throw them out... Of course that isnt the case, but if it was, this fact would certainly need to be accounted for in some way.

a reply to: lostgirl
agreed.

a reply to: EnPassant

I think we are at cross purposes here. When you said that sightings are explained by psychological components I understood that you were talking about something more profound, like the hallucinations you mentioned. That's the way I read your post.

No, I am talking about psych 101 stuff. Discussing hallucinations in this context is pointless because it is almost impossible to prove that it has ever occurred in any of these cases but I have also pointed out that they do commonly occur in the normal population without the need to invoke your "deluded people with bad brain wiring filled bugs in their head". like this:

The counter argument is that these witnesses are deluded, or their brain's wiring is gone wrong or they are mistaken or whatever.

which is not at all the counter argument. The counter argument is that people are being people with normal psychology and yes, hallucinations ARE a part of normal psychology. Anomalous experiences
If this is the case, what rules it out? I agree with Jim that we don't need to bring it into the mix but you are talking about people being deluded and having bugs in their brains and I am pointing out that normal people can have very profound experiences

It is now widely recognized that hallucinatory experiences are not merely the prerogative of those suffering from mental illness, or normal people in abnormal states, but that they occur spontaneously in a significant proportion of the normal population, when in good health and not undergoing particular stress or other abnormal circumstance.

Does this explain ANY UFO sightings? I don't know but I am having a hard time understanding how you are dismissing it. But lets focus on the psych 101 stuff.

In ordinary misidentifications, that are easily explained, simple errors can explain things. Most of these misidentifications are just a light in the sky, Chinese lanterns etc. These are just mistakes that don't require profound psychological components.

This is a good example of where people are missing an important piece of the puzzle. Before they were discovered to be just lights in the sky and Chinese lanterns, they were thought to be alien space ships. These would be the same alien space ships that make up each and every case you are talking about. We are also talking about giant mother ships like in the Yukon case. www.ufobc.ca...

This is a story about the one day that changed my whole sense of reality forever. Before, you start thinking I’m weird or crazy............just hear me out.
....
It was an astronomical silent presence passing slowly over us. I was hypnotized by the spectacular sight I had just witnessed. I thought to myself ‘come on! stop the car!' But of course my body wouldn’t do what my mind wanted it to do. So it was like I was frozen in time but time seemed to continue without me! I’m sure I wasn’t myself at that moment and still think so to this day! In fact I was quite beside myself with fear of this immense thing!

This was a reaction to "lights in the sky" which was perceived as a giant mother ship by a healthy person that wasn't delusional or suffering from bug head.

I am not clear whether you are talking about simple things like lanterns or deeper things like being abducted or seeing aliens. There is a qualitative difference here.

You tell me.

originally posted by: lostgirl
a reply to: 111DPKING111

I would include:

Radar returns with confirmed eyewitness visuals of the object, especially pilots who chased an object which they could see on radar and with their own eyes..

NO.........the "debunkers" would have you believe those objects that coincide with radar returns, the latter which are supposedly "spoofed", are just "plasmas" that miraculously defy the laws of conservation of energy.

YES.....the sometimes twisted and convoluted logic of "debunker" explanations are enough to give you a headache, not to mention a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
The Chile government are not afraid of Ufo disclosure, possible because their population will react much more maturely to the reality than the Western populations.

www.mirror.co.uk...

Chile UFO: Government confirm mysterious object is NOT 'made by man'


17:18, 16 April 2015
By Kara O'Neill


Authorities revealed that they do not recognise the strange object which was captured hovering in the skies





Chilian miners spot this UFO and officials are stumped by the footage



A UFO that was sighted in Chile is 'not a known object made by man', according to the country's government.

Officials released the footage after completing a thorough investigation and have announced in a report that the mysterious object is not one they recognise.

They confirmed that the silver disc seen in the clip was approximately 10 metres in diameter and performed with vertical and horizontal movements that no other aircraft can do, according to Chilean media reports.




CEEFA Chile Government

Footage: Video clips have been released which capture the UFO on camera


Scientists at the Centre for the Study of Anomalous Ariel Phenomena (CEFAA) confirmed: "It is not any weather phenomenon or any other known object made by man."

The footage was originally shot in April 2013 by miners who were working at the Collahuasi copper mine in north Chile.

Initially, they chose to keep the clip under wraps, for fear of being ridiculed, but later showed the clip to one of their bosses who insisted on sending copies to the CEFAA in February 2014.




CEEFA Chile Government

Spotted: The mysterious object was seen by workers above a Chilean mine


The witnesses, who have chosen to remain anonymous, revealed that the object hovered in the sky for over an hour, and did not make any sound.

According to reports published in July 2014, the Chilean Meterological Office confirmed that the sky was clear on the day in question and now lenticular clouds (saucer shaped cloud formations) were recorded.

José Lay, director of international affairs at CEFAA also excluded the possibility that the UFO could be a drone.




CEEFA Chile Government

Disk: The suspiciously shaped UFO is not 'made by man' according to reports


"People in that area are well aware of the existence of drones.

"Fishing companies use drones and [they] make much noise. This was definitely not a drone."

Officials also ruled out experimental aircraft, weather balloons, or other military drills that could explain the incident.

Earlier this week a 'shape changing' UFO was caught on camera in Columbia by a respected newspaper editor.

Yes, I saw that as well, though couldn't find more actual back-up from any Chilean government sources. Here is the original interesting thread on the topic:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Why do you think Fyfe Symington told two opposing stories?

The way I see it is he was instrumental in dismissing all the witnesses by omitting to mention that he saw anything. The Press conference he led was the equivalent of twirling a finger next to his forehead to imply that the reported witnesses were ridiculous. How do you feel when an ATS member scorns your comments? Not good? Pissed off? That's what Symington did. His omission provided the media with a field day at the expense of those who said they'd seen something unusual:

Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions

Wiki definition

Later on, no longer Governor, he said he'd seen the same thing as other witnesses.

Maybe he did see something? I don't know. Which of his two positions was the reality? That's what I meant by saying he was not a good example of an honest observer.

You are correct, a deliberate omission can be considered a lie, but that is still not the same as telling two opposing stories.

I agree that his alien "spoof" press conference was disrespectful to the thousands of witnesses and could have achieved the same goal of reducing public panic in another less disrespectful manner.

However, again, his later claims of seeing the craft, and his opinion that it was ET in nature do not directly contradict anything he said at the time of the incident.

If you completely dismiss his credibility due to this, even though he was an ex air force officer and ex-governor, who will you believe? How small is the subset of people that have better credentials than this and can actually claim they were part of a authentic UFO incident? I think it is virtually zero.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

NO.........the "debunkers" would have you believe those objects that coincide with radar returns, the latter which are supposedly "spoofed", are just "plasmas" that miraculously defy the laws of conservation of energy.

I wouldnt get too caught up getting everyone on the believer side, some people will simply never be convinced until they see it.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: lostgirl
a reply to: 111DPKING111

I would include:

Radar returns with confirmed eyewitness visuals of the object, especially pilots who chased an object which they could see on radar and with their own eyes..

NO.........the "debunkers" would have you believe those objects that coincide with radar returns, the latter which are supposedly "spoofed", are just "plasmas" that miraculously defy the laws of conservation of energy.

YES.....the sometimes twisted and convoluted logic of "debunker" explanations are enough to give you a headache, not to mention a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

You obviously have never actually tried to understand a skeptical assessment of such cases, but instead rely on your imagined fantasies of 'straw men' to preserve your existing opinions. Your contribution to this discussion is worthless except as an illustration of why the subject is so garbled and obscure. Thanks for making it worse.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: lostgirl
a reply to: 111DPKING111

I would include:

Radar returns with confirmed eyewitness visuals of the object, especially pilots who chased an object which they could see on radar and with their own eyes..

NO.........the "debunkers" would have you believe those objects that coincide with radar returns, the latter which are supposedly "spoofed", are just "plasmas" that miraculously defy the laws of conservation of energy.

YES.....the sometimes twisted and convoluted logic of "debunker" explanations are enough to give you a headache, not to mention a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

You obviously have never actually tried to understand a skeptical assessment of such cases, but instead rely on your imagined fantasies of 'straw men' to preserve your existing opinions. Your contribution to this discussion is worthless except as an illustration of why the subject is so garbled and obscure. Thanks for making it worse.

To be fair...there was a discussion about plasmas and radar spoofing as an explanation for some cases but I think it was mostly speculation and hardly a "debunker" explanation. I personally wasn't sold on it but I am hardly a "debunker" either. But yes, this is a very distorted viewpoint and then over generalized as being the view of "debunkers". This being based on a couple of posts speculating about a particular case.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on radar cases? If you have some specific ones, I would be interested in hearing about those.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

If one aspect of ufology has credibility so do others. If some multiple witness sightings are true sightings single witness sightings are likely to be true also, it is just that there is not so much supporting evidence. If the whistleblowers are telling the truth flying saucers are real and this fact lends credibility to those that say they saw them.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: lostgirl
a reply to: 111DPKING111

I would include:

Radar returns with confirmed eyewitness visuals of the object, especially pilots who chased an object which they could see on radar and with their own eyes..

NO.........the "debunkers" would have you believe those objects that coincide with radar returns, the latter which are supposedly "spoofed", are just "plasmas" that miraculously defy the laws of conservation of energy.

YES.....the sometimes twisted and convoluted logic of "debunker" explanations are enough to give you a headache, not to mention a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

You obviously have never actually tried to understand a skeptical assessment of such cases, but instead rely on your imagined fantasies of 'straw men' to preserve your existing opinions. Your contribution to this discussion is worthless except as an illustration of why the subject is so garbled and obscure. Thanks for making it worse.

I just can't understand why insults are necessary when a logical counter argument should be good enough?

Did anyone mention to you that attempts at emotional/ego engagement are hallmarks of disinformation agents? Is that what you were attempting with your insults to me?

Do you think such high-schoolish antics say more about me or actually say more about you?

Let me ask you this, given the hundreds of thousands of UFO sightings over the past 70 years or so, do you think that non-human intelligence is one possibility? A simple yes or no will do.

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: 111DPKING111

If one aspect of ufology has credibility so do others. If some multiple witness sightings are true sightings single witness sightings are likely to be true also, it is just that there is not so much supporting evidence. If the whistleblowers are telling the truth flying saucers are real and this fact lends credibility to those that say they saw them.

I agree! If you can show one case being due to aliens (two would be better), then you will be free to extrapolate to other cases as being aliens and even give them a probability of being so.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Did anyone mention to you that attempts at emotional/ego engagement are hallmarks of disinformation agents? Is that what you were attempting with your insults to me?

Nah. I think he is just frustrated because its nearly impossible to have a real discussion about this stuff. So stop being a nincompoop!