Why Do People Believe in UFOs?: A Discovery News Trash Piece

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
So, the [Disclosure Project] testimony from the Iranian military pilot about the 1976 Iran UFO chase, FAA Division chief testimony about radar confirmation of a UFO, Witnesses to UFOs at Edwards Air Force Base seen on multiple radars by military personnel and various other high ranking military testimony cases, aren't taken seriously in the UFO community? Those are the "crazy" ones I guess, huh? How do you differentiate the "intelligent" cases from the non-intelligent ones? Aren't the military or professional witnesses, one of the arguments of the validity of UFO cases?

You're being silly and argumentative, Ectoplasm. Ask yourself, how do you personally judge the credibility of any person? Why are you unable or unwilling to apply the same principles to individuals in this instance? Do you actually believe all witnesses of a certain type, or from a certain background, or who are associated with a certain person or group, must be of equal credibility? (Binary thinking strikes again....)

Are you sure you're being truly skeptical here, as opposed to engaging in outright denial? The lack of ability or willingness by you to distinguish between Disclosure Project witnesses who are credible vs. those who've been shown to lack the credentials they claimed suggests to me that you're being intentionally obtuse. You're obviously not unintelligent, and are surely able to answer each of your own questions from above. They're not the clever trap you may think....

Silly and argumentative? I gave the Disclosure Project as an example and he said those testimonies: "wouldn't even make the waiting list for a spot among the serious, intelligent and thoughtful material on the UFO phenomenon." Most of those cases involve military witnesses and also contain radar "evidence". You said yourself in an early post: "the unreasonable dismissal of all witness testimony (even when buttressed by concrete data, such as radar) that tends to activate 'pugnacity mode' in me." Your cohort in this "intelligent" approach to UFOs, negated and/or dismissed part of how you approach these cases.

The UFO community uses military, or other professions like police officers, as adding more credibility to UFO cases. This is done all the time. The comment was in the position of the believers, not myself. Judging the credibility of someone stating they saw a strange object in the sky, military or not, isn't in question. AGAIN, I can believe someone saw something strange and unexplainable, in their eyes. They aren't saying they saw an extraterrestrial being, piloting the object. I guess I need sentences with more verbiage. It's exhausting repeating the same comment 10 times, for "my position" to yet again, go misunderstood.

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
Judging the credibility of someone stating they saw a strange object in the sky, military or not, isn't in question. AGAIN, I can believe someone saw something strange and unexplainable, in their eyes.

edit on 23-8-2012 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)

I think the difference in our opinions largely comes down to whether or not we can accept that things like this:



...are actually seen by people, looking pretty much like this and behaving in the manner described by witnesses. The things they describe are not just "strange and unexplainable". They are strange and unexplainable in particular ways that fall into patterns and that allow conventional explanations to be reasonably ruled out. We can always resort to "Well, then the witnesses can't possibly have seen what they describe", but when numerous people similarly describe an object above them that is the apparent diameter of their fist at arm's length, I don't automatically dismiss their claims just because I don't know what the object is.

I don't necessarily "believe" that what was seen in the Redlands case and others like it was an extraterrestrial craft, but I do believe that the object was seen and that it was nothing conventional.

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
Silly and argumentative? I gave the Disclosure Project as an example and he said those testimonies: "wouldn't even make the waiting list for a spot among the serious, intelligent and thoughtful material on the UFO phenomenon." Most of those cases involve military witnesses and also contain radar "evidence". You said yourself in an early post: "the unreasonable dismissal of all witness testimony (even when buttressed by concrete data, such as radar) that tends to activate 'pugnacity mode' in me." Your cohort in this "intelligent" approach to UFOs, negated and/or dismissed part of how you approach these cases.

The UFO community uses military, or other professions like police officers, as adding more credibility to UFO cases. This is done all the time....

But is it actually this hard for you to distinguish between the credibility of the entire Disclosure Project vs. the credibility of each individual witness testifying for the Disclosure Project? Were the topic anything other than UFOs, you'd willingly concede the obvious distinction. And that's why your responses sound, yes, argumentative to me.

You play dumb when I know you're not....

You know that a few bad apples can spoil the appeal of an entire crate of otherwise fine apples.

You know that Greer did a poor job of verifying the credentials of some of his speakers.

And the Disclosure Project lost credibility because of that. Hence Orkojoker's comment about it not even making the waiting list....

But do a few liars mean that every individual who spoke at a Disclosure Project event is a fraud?

Of course not!

Each individual's credibility must be judged on its own, even though that can be messier and a lot more work than simply accepting or dismissing all witnesses, as a group. And you know all of these things, I'm confident....

The problem here is one of analysis. Some people in this thread are clearly the analytic types, who like to delve into such details and read as much as they can about them, from the most credible sources. And some other posters in this thread are maybe not quite so analytic, or show no interest in reading the most credible sources, or show little willingness to apply the same common-sense reliability filters they use each day to the UFO problem... which is strange.

It really should not be this difficult for you to simply admit that perhaps some military officers / pilots / etc. are reliable and credible witnesses, while some others (especially those who claim credentials they don't actually possess, as with a few from the Disclosure Project) are not.

It's such a tiny point, with a distinction I know you understand, yet you seem unable or unwilling to make it. And that is called being "argumentative."

Other than to avoid discussion of the bigger UFO picture, I'm not sure why a person would seem to want to purposely complicate the most obvious of points... it this time being that some witnesses are credible, some are not, and that even just a few who are not can damage the reputation of an entire organization. None of that is mind-bending.

Although I would not recommend (all of) the Disclosure Project interviews and testimony to a person wanting to learn about the UFO phenomenon, I would advise taking in the video below, which some people have understandably confused with the Greer-run event:

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets


But is it actually this hard for you to distinguish between the credibility of the entire Disclosure Project vs. the credibility of each individual witness testifying for the Disclosure Project? Were the topic anything other than UFOs, you'd willingly concede the obvious distinction. And that's why your responses sound, yes, argumentative to me.

You play dumb when I know you're not....

You know that a few bad apples can spoil the appeal of an entire crate of otherwise fine apples.

You know that Greer did a poor job of verifying the credentials of some of his speakers.

And the Disclosure Project lost credibility because of that. Hence Orkojoker's comment about it not even making the waiting list....

But do a few liars mean that every individual who spoke at a Disclosure Project event is a fraud?

Of course not!

Each individual's credibility must be judged on its own, even though that can be messier and a lot more work than simply accepting or dismissing all witnesses, as a group. And you know all of these things, I'm confident....

The problem here is one of analysis. Some people in this thread are clearly the analytic types, who like to delve into such details and read as much as they can about them, from the most credible sources. And some other posters in this thread are maybe not quite so analytic, or show no interest in reading the most credible sources, or show little willingness to apply the same common-sense reliability filters they use each day to the UFO problem... which is strange.

It really should not be this difficult for you to simply admit that perhaps some military officers / pilots / etc. are reliable and credible witnesses, while some others (especially those who claim credentials they don't actually possess, as with a few from the Disclosure Project) are not.

It's such a tiny point, with a distinction I know you understand, yet you seem unable or unwilling to make it. And that is called being "argumentative."

Other than to avoid discussion of the bigger UFO picture, I'm not sure why a person would seem to want to purposely complicate the most obvious of points... it this time being that some witnesses are credible, some are not, and that even just a few who are not can damage the reputation of an entire organization. None of that is mind-bending.

If you can come to the conclusion that Orkojoker wasn't dismissing all of the Disclosure Project, which in turn dismisses part of your belief in radar data, as "concrete" evidence. Even though initially he did and followed up with another post saying: "I know that you will not find the most compelling evidence for the reality of the phenomenon on YouTube - at least I didn't.." confirming he dismisses it or at least doesn't take it seriously. Then on top of that, you say why can't I: "simply admit that perhaps some military officers / pilots / etc. are reliable and credible witnesses, while some others (especially those who claim credentials they don't actually possess, as with a few from the Disclosure Project) are not." Even though I have repeatedly stated how I don't question peoples credibility either way in regards seeing UFOs. It's no wonder that a logical, analytical, conclusion in your mind would be an ET-UFO connection. You connect these imaginary dots in whatever order, to complete a picture in the way you want it to come out. Kinda like Betty Hills "alien star map" which when viewed without connecting lines, it just a bunch of random dots that can be formed into anything.

As I stated before, it's exhausting having to continually repeat myself. This thread has had no value, not to mention off topic, and I've lost interest in posting. You continue to fantasize that UFOs are connected to extraterrestrials, because at this point, it is fantasy. View your approach as intelligent, analytical, or whatever way. Don't care so much how other people might see it. When you find that solid physical evidence that would convince me, skeptics or any hardcore scientist, post a new thread about it.

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

If you can come to the conclusion that Orkojoker wasn't dismissing all of the Disclosure Project, which in turn dismisses part of your belief in radar data, as "concrete" evidence. Even though initially he did and followed up with another post saying: "I know that you will not find the most compelling evidence for the reality of the phenomenon on YouTube - at least I didn't.." confirming he dismisses it or at least doesn't take it seriously.

You misunderstand me. My feelings about the Disclosure Project can be summed up as follows: John Callahan et al, yes. Clifford Stone et al, no. And I never implied that there was nothing worthwhile on YouTube, I said you would not find the most compelling evidence there, and you won't.

If I were trying to steer someone onto what I feel is the right path regarding this subject, I would first recommend books to them, not anything on YouTube. If they absolutely couldn't bring themselves to sit down and read something, there are a few videos I could point out to them (including the one I posted above from the National Press Club event in 2007). I certainly would never say, "You should watch the Disclosure Project".

Also, you take a leap in logic when you imply that because I wouldn't recommend the Disclosure Project I must dismiss radar evidence as irrelevant, which I don't.

By the way, what did you think of that Redlands, California, case?

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
As I stated before, it's exhausting having to continually repeat myself. This thread has had no value, not to mention off topic, and I've lost interest in posting....

Yes, Ectoplasm, this is all very tiring....

But this thread has had tremendous value, in my opinion: it shows that people like you can come to firm conclusions regarding UFOs, even to the point of ridicule (as in your most recent post), without having even read the most important science on the topic. And happily admitting such... and best of all, while still seeing no problem with that 'approach' to information. Again, see the 5+ sources I listed WAY back in this thread. You should really read at least a few of them if you want to be considered informed.