The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic

Originally posted by Druscilla

... and again:
UFOs = Unknown phenomenon.
Aliens = Zero data, unknown, unquantifiable.

In the same vein, if we're playing the pick-your-favorite-imaginary-solution-devoid-of-any-indication-of-proof, we may as well throw UFOs = Demons, UFOs = rainbow unicorns, UFOs = Superman, or UFOs = any other ridiculous fantasy into the mix as well.

There's zero data on aliens.

Do your homework, Druscilla!!

The Air Force, WAY back in the late 40's, said the 'Flying Disks' were "real and not visionary or fictitious". They also said that "[t]he reported operating characteristics ... and action which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely." This is why the Air Force UFO projects began. Do you actually not know this?

You say there's "zero data" suggestive of non-human intelligence. You say it could all be explained by wormholes or ball lighting or plasma balls. I say you're simply ignorant of the phenomenon's history, and have to keep ignoring an awful lot (including various governments' official responses) to conclude that the ETH is not a reasonable candidate here.

Do you know anything about the "Estimate of the Situation"? Tell us what you know about it ... preferably ASAP, instead of after hours of googling and word wrangling.

Anyone else who's interested in the topic as treated officially by world governments would enjoy the new book by Michael Swords, et al., entitled "UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry" ....

There's more than enough even in the official documents to show that your hypotheses are very weak candidates in the race to explain the entirety of the phenomenon. That you had to resort to 'wormhole' to even offer a single non-ridiculous explanation for the one incident I mentioned shows how far you'll reach.

If you don't want to read all the legitimate and respectable sources that I (and others) have previously mentioned to you, at least read the Swords book I just mentioned. Your talk of fairies, unicorns and superman would stop ... at least if you're at all reasonable.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
As to plasma balls, I consider that hypothesis as having been dispensed with, decades ago, back in the Menzel days. Read the exchanges between him, Klass, Hynek and McDonald. Certainly plasma balls can explain some small percentage of incidents, but it falls very much short in others. And once again, any person who has read that old and (to you, it seems) distasteful work would know precisely why plasma balls are really not a viable explanation. If only you'd read! You do realize that the people whose work I keep referring you to were respected scientists, correct? No matter, I suppose.

First, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that no ETs have ever been here.

In that case, so-called UFOs must have either a natural explanation, or must simply be mischaracterized normal and everyday occurences.

Now, one would not expect that, in this case, every single incident would have the exact same explanation, would one?

Plasma balls certainly do explain some sightings. And these sightings would typically be ones that are classified as "unexplained."

Other incidents would have other explanantions, such as secret aircraft, hallucination, swamp gas, etc. These sorts would also have been classified as "unexplained," since nobody will reveal secret aircraft, hallucinations are not determinable at later times, and swamp gas must be observed at the same instant as the "sighting."

Now, I only use the term swamp gas as a catch-all. Don't think I'm trying to explain anything away with swamp gas. There are many things that are known to certain fields of science that are unknown to Joe Blow who believes he's just seen a UFO. Plasma balls are one of these things,. Atmospheric sprites also fall into this category. So do Earth lights, etc.

The point is, it is true that one can find sightings that cannot be explained away with plasma. However, that doesn't mean the sightings are unexplainable, just that they are unexplained by plasma balls.

Harte

Originally posted by ImpactoR

Originally posted by draknoir2

The way you are using the term implies a deliberate, irrational rejection of a widely accepted "truth".

It's almost like that but whether it is truth has yet to be revealed. The point is, denying absolutely possible things based on current evidence and that evidence is not even all. In general... i was speaking to Drusdilla and others whom I've been observing enough to see where they are heading, and it;s not jard to figre put - that of complete close-mindness. You know, accepting more things when cases suggest so wouldn't hurt your "scientific!?:" approach.

If that's scientific, I will pass. I gave exampels how a thing that you may not know about and others know about, can exist, no evidence for YOU? Your problem

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
if I get bored enough and have some time, I might just find the quotes from all the skeptics in this thread where they say things are possible...but I have a robot to work on and you know how much time that takes.

Oh really? why do you talk on behalf of others? Some people I have addressed do no accept such thing as alien visitation so I am addressing to the suitable people for that my criticism, and yet they believe in aliens in the universe which I say is the same level of certaintly even less because at least there are some cases on earth that suggest that possibility, while in space so far even less evidence is found about life existing elsewhere.

Also the people I am taking about and pretty much all are defending the position that aliens have never visited here, and all is made up. So why do you argue with me how I am addressing people that don't visit this forum when the people I am talking about are exactly saying that ALL THE TIME !?!?!?

edit on 19-2-2013 by ImpactoR because: (no reason given)

It would help if you argued your case with the actual people you disagree with and the people that actually post in the thread. Maybe use the quote function? The bigger question is why do you speak on behalf of others and state a position they dont have and then argue against that position?

reply to post by Druscilla

People, however, like aliens.
Aliens have a face.
You can hug an alien.
You can have crystal power transcendental meditative telepathic imaginary conversations with Aliens.
Aliens can be secret evil-doers in cahoots with those dastardly self entitled rich folk.
Aliens can answer for all sorts of mysteries and unknowns

Personally, I do not like aliens and would never hug one. Although that crystal power transcendental meditative telepathic imaginary conversation thing sounds really effen cool.

Seriously, this is a good point that you brought up. Aliens do sell and that does weigh in on my overall assessment of the phenomenon.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

The Air Force, WAY back in the late 40's, said the 'Flying Disks' were "real and not visionary or fictitious". They also said that "[t]he reported operating characteristics ... and action which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely." This is why the Air Force UFO projects began. Do you actually not know this?

Well golly gee. That's real swell for ... 60 years ago!

Would you like for a retro physician to treat you, or do surgery on you with only the medical knowledge of 60 years ago?
How would you like to go under the care and supervision of a Psychiatrist using only the very cutting edge in Psychiatric treatment from 60 years ago?
You won't miss those parts of your brain once they're excised, I swear.

You're talking about a near completely different civilization of vacuum tubes, rotary phones connecting to switchboards, and movie theaters that played the role of television what with personal televisions not being all that common as opposed to radio sets.

"real and not visionary or fictitious"?
Could you detail the qualifications of the person who made this statement and inform us of their awareness regarding phenomenon that wasn't discovered, studied, or in the awareness of science like naturally occurring piezoelectric discharges (that have on numerous occasion been mistaken or claimed to be UFOs), among others that have been listed that require no aliens?

"[t]he reported operating characteristics ... and action which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely."?

Do I really even need to critique this? Lend Belief? Possibility? Considered?

You're like some poor rodent grasping at flotsam from the wreckage of a boat, desperate to survive; clinging to this wreckage you grip for your very life.

Lend Belief? Possibly? Considered?
Really?

These are the rocks of foundation you build your religious conviction from?

I'm not unaware of these cute little stories. I'm not unaware of these little stories at all.
They, however, other than entertainment, truck very little to zero value.

Certainly from an operational security standpoint it would, and would still be a reasonable action by any military air force to enact an investigation, regardless their limitations or even advancements into such phenomenon.
Operational security can launch investigations on whispered rumors alone.

Did any investigations ever find aliens? Or, did these investigations only Lend Belief? Possibly? or give pause to be Considered?

You're STILL trying to divide by zero.

Do you even read all of every post?

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Do you see just how incredibly hard you're having to work to deny what is obviously the most straight-forward explanation for this phenomenon?

Apologies to you both for my interjecting, but I have to ask - Exactly HOW is "ET" obviously the most straightforward explanation for the UFO phenomenon... without a shred of concrete proof?

Let's look at just some of the steps required to get from here to there:

Proof of life outside of earth.

Proof of intelligence.

The whole argument is based on that these things are "intellengently controlled". Right there is where we can stop. The whole premise IS based on a subjective evaluation of these events. We can speculate and thats interesting and all but there is no clear cut definition of "intelligence" here.
"craft"
"pacing"
"avoiding"
are not objective terms but are used frequently to describe these things. If we throw words like these out, there is really much left.

Originally posted by draknoir2
Apologies to you both for my interjecting, but I have to ask - Exactly HOW is "ET" obviously the most straightforward explanation for the UFO phenomenon... without a shred of concrete proof?

Let's look at just some of the steps required to get from here to there:

Proof of life outside of earth.

Proof of intelligence.
[...]
Proof of travel to Earth.

Proof such travel accounts for the entirety or preponderance of UFO reports.

Now let's look at the available concrete proof:

Zip. Nada. Zero. The null set.

What amazes me is the oversimplification required to believe there to be a single explanation for the entire phenomenon, and the best "theory" being one of complete speculation. One might as well attribute it to magic.

Or, one can recognize that there are many reports of nuts and bolts craft which are seen by multiple witnesses, which are caught on radar, which appear to act and react intelligently, and which clearly outperform anything humans can manufacture ... and one can then either accept that some percentage of those reports may be true, OR completely dismiss them all as the result of some kind of, what, synchronous mass hallucination, which affects even our best sensor systems, I guess?

And what's with the following statement? You say that "Proof such travel accounts for the entirety or preponderance of UFO reports" is a necessary assumption. That's incorrect, and not at all logical, and you know it.

If there were just one case that you found 70% convincing, would that constitute evidence, in your mind? Not proof -- and I'm not sure why people get so hung up on this concept and say 'absolute proof or it's not true'!! -- but just evidence?

If there were 10 similar cases, would that be evidence?

100?

1,000?

How many are needed before we say "okay, there's some evidence, even if not proof"???

Do you know how many strong cases there are? It's subjective. But "many" captures the idea. So what are the odds that there's not a thing to even a single one of them? This is where some course work in statistics might come in handy. Especially because you must factor into that answer the diversity of the phenomenon. The level of diversity that's reported in these strongest cases -- enough difference, but not too much -- makes it very unlikely that the unidentifieds are just future identifieds waiting for a solution. In fact, the Air Force reached this very conclusion in 1953 (in SR14 ... but forgot to tell the public), so why are people still stuck on this?

Is it Oberg's little 'bundle of sticks' analogy? Because that can be easily dispensed with. It does sound cute and clever, but for it to apply, you need to first establish that you've got nothing but sticks in the bundle, i.e., nothing but future identifieds... which of course makes the 'analogy' perfectly circular, and thus invalid. So let's not have that be a barrier.

We can agree to disagree if you want, but I'll never understand the obsession with 'proof' when there is ample evidence to digest and ponder and be amazed by. 'Proof' exists only in mathematics, not in science.

Originally posted by Brighter
reply to post by draknoir2

 

And I'll pose this question again for anyone to answer, who believes that the best explanation for the strongest UFO cases is that they are all explainable in terms of mundane, naturalistic phenomena:

What is your naturalistic theory that simply and elegantly explains the strongest UFO cases, that explains them better than the simple theory that what people are reporting really are structured, physical craft?

I'm not really clear here. I think the general answer is; there is no theory "that simply and elegantly explains the strongest UFO cases".
I get the impression that you are trying to bait someone into droping some bizarre "theory" to explain all so that you can destroy it.

Anyway, here is my "theory" but its more of a perosonal belief or opinion based soley on my own subjective observations.
Humans need to make stories out of random data. Humans need to fill in missing data with something tangible. Its like a gi-normous paredolia. Think about it, everything is a story from the minutest detatil to the big picture.

"How was your day honey?"

And if you don't want to publicly answer this question, then at least try and do so in private.

Wait, what? people are going to read my posts?

Originally posted by Druscilla
Well golly gee. That's real swell for ... 60 years ago!

Would you like for a retro physician to treat you, or do surgery on you with only the medical knowledge of 60 years ago? ... Could you detail the qualifications of the person who made this statement...?

Once again, it would benefit you greatly to make yourself familiar with the official history of the topic. By not recognizing the significance of the document -- what it was, who it came from, the actions it resulted in -- you only stick your foot in your mouth and appear uninformed. Which is accurate here, obviously (since you're asking about the background and credibility of its author!), but it's still never fun to see.

Go read, Druscilla ... and if not for knowledge, then at least for the sake of your own reputation.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Originally posted by draknoir2
Apologies to you both for my interjecting, but I have to ask - Exactly HOW is "ET" obviously the most straightforward explanation for the UFO phenomenon... without a shred of concrete proof?

Let's look at just some of the steps required to get from here to there:

Proof of life outside of earth.

Proof of intelligence.
[...]
Proof of travel to Earth.

Proof such travel accounts for the entirety or preponderance of UFO reports.

Now let's look at the available concrete proof:

Zip. Nada. Zero. The null set.

What amazes me is the oversimplification required to believe there to be a single explanation for the entire phenomenon, and the best "theory" being one of complete speculation. One might as well attribute it to magic.

Or, one can recognize that there are many reports of nuts and bolts craft which are seen by multiple witnesses, which are caught on radar, which appear to act and react intelligently, and which clearly outperform anything humans can manufacture ... and one can then either accept that some percentage of those reports may be true, OR completely dismiss them all as the result of some kind of, what, synchronous mass hallucination, which affects even our best sensor systems, I guess?

And what's with the following statement? You say that "Proof such travel accounts for the entirety or preponderance of UFO reports" is a necessary assumption. That's incorrect, and not at all logical, and you know it.

If there were just one case that you found 70% convincing, would that constitute evidence, in your mind? Not proof -- and I'm not sure why people get so hung up on this concept and say 'absolute proof or it's not true'!! -- but just evidence?

If there were 10 similar cases, would that be evidence?

100?

1,000?

How many are needed before we say "okay, there's some evidence, even if not proof"???

Do you know how many strong cases there are? It's subjective. But "many" captures the idea. So what are the odds that there's not a thing to even a single one of them? This is where some course work in statistics might come in handy. Especially because you must factor into that answer the diversity of the phenomenon. The level of diversity that's reported in these strongest cases -- enough difference, but not too much -- makes it very unlikely that the unidentifieds are just future identifieds waiting for a solution. In fact, the Air Force reached this very conclusion in 1953 (in SR14 ... but forgot to tell the public), so why are people still stuck on this?

Is it Oberg's little 'bundle of sticks' analogy? Because that can be easily dispensed with. It does sound cute and clever, but for it to apply, you need to first establish that you've got nothing but sticks in the bundle, i.e., nothing but future identifieds... which of course makes the 'analogy' perfectly circular, and thus invalid. So let's not have that be a barrier.

We can agree to disagree if you want, but I'll never understand the obsession with 'proof' when there is ample evidence to digest and ponder and be amazed by. 'Proof' exists only in mathematics, not in science.

almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades

reply to post by xszawe


Explanation: S&F!

Generally one is supposed to seek the MOST SIMPLEST answer ... and having ruled them all out first using the 2 tools of logic AND REASON ... one can then [and only then] logically and reasonably start to speculate wildly.

Personal Disclosure: But working within the Kuhnian paradigm or alternatively applying Popperainian Falsification methods depends on ones mood and the forum one decides to partake in.

The paradigm on ATS is these things exist regardless of the naysaying because as Conspiracy Theorists we must invoke our paranoia and work from the position that no matter what they, TPTB, are always lying to us even when they say 1+1 =2 ok.

The ability to prove or debunk the above online is very limited.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Once again, it would benefit you greatly to make yourself familiar with the official history of the topic. By not recognizing the significance of the document -- what it was, who it came from, the actions it resulted in -- you only stick your foot in your mouth and appear uninformed. Which is accurate here, obviously (since you're asking about the background and credibility of its author!), but it's still never fun to see.

Go read, Druscilla ... and if not for knowledge, then at least for the sake of your own reputation.

Avoiding the question.
Avoiding the points made throughout the post and many other posts.

Classic.

Now you're just being defensively and embarrassingly stubborn if not willfully and militantly rejecting the objectivity of critical thinking, as well as every relevance contradicting your religious focus.

You still think that you can divide by zero.

I'm not the only one pointing this out.
If you can't see this after all the dialogue, there's really no point in discussing this further as you are either wholly lacking in the cognitive facility, and/or have prejudiced yourself in favor of a pet belief under the patently false guise of rationale, but in actuality are just another saucer-eyed moony.

It wouldn't surprise me if Whitley Strieber's Communion was part of your collection of "important relevant factual" literature.
Are you also a member of Billy Meier's FIGU organization?
Does your patron saint medallion have a picture of George Adamski?
... all rhetorical and irrelevant, but, according your arguments, the answer to these may as well be 'yes".

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Once again, it would benefit you greatly to make yourself familiar with the official history of the topic. By not recognizing the significance of the document -- what it was, who it came from, the actions it resulted in -- you only stick your foot in your mouth and appear uninformed. Which is accurate here, obviously (since you're asking about the background and credibility of its author!), but it's still never fun to see.

Go read, Druscilla ... and if not for knowledge, then at least for the sake of your own reputation.

Avoiding the question.
Avoiding the points made throughout the post and many other posts.

Classic.

Now you're just being defensively and embarrassingly stubborn if not willfully and militantly rejecting the objectivity of critical thinking, as well as every relevance contradicting your religious focus.

You still think that you can divide by zero.

I'm not the only one pointing this out.
If you can't see this after all the dialogue, there's really no point in discussing this further as you are either wholly lacking in the cognitive facility, and/or have prejudiced yourself in favor of a pet belief under the patently false guise of rationale, but in actuality are just another saucer-eyed moony.

It wouldn't surprise me if Whitley Strieber's Communion was part of your collection of "important relevant factual" literature.
Are you also a member of Billy Meier's FIGU organization?
Does your patron saint medallion have a picture of George Adamski?
... all rhetorical and irrelevant, but, according your arguments, the answer to these may as well be 'yes".

edit on 19-2-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

Lemme see. TeaAndStrumpets attempts to debate rationally and give you a heads up concerning some serious literature, yet you retort merely with ad hominems. Gee, if I didn't know any better I'd say you are a bigot. Fortunately, there are smarter men and women than you who come to different conclusions. No reason to take Druscilla seriously.

Lemme see. TeaAndStrumpets attempts to debate rationally and give you a heads up concerning some serious literature, yet you retort merely with ad hominems. Gee, if I didn't know any better I'd say you are a bigot. Fortunately, there are smarter men and women than you who come to different conclusions. No reason to take Druscilla seriously.

edit on 19-2-2013 by jclmavg because: (no reason given)

Depends at which point you come into conversation.

Originally posted by Harte
... Plasma balls certainly do explain some sightings. And these sightings would typically be ones that are classified as "unexplained."

Other incidents would have other explanantions, such as secret aircraft, hallucination, swamp gas, etc. These sorts would also have been classified as "unexplained," since nobody will reveal secret aircraft, hallucinations are not determinable at later times, and swamp gas must be observed at the same instant as the "sighting."

Exactly. This is why (as was done decades ago) you pull in experts from various and diverse fields, so that the 'UFO' can be compared to all phenomena in each arena: astronomy, geology, atmospheric physics, psychology, and so on.

When you've got a dozen people telling you they saw a disk-shaped craft hover a few hundred feet away and then speed off at incredible speeds, and then the radar operators in the tower of the nearby airport say they saw it and had it on radar, and THEN you bring in all of these experts and have them eliminate all practicably possible mundane explanations ... well, what's left?

And as to ball lightning specifically, James McDonald dealt with it pretty convincingly in his paper "UFOs - An International Scientific Problem". (The pdf is floating around out there, and should still sbe at the Princeton archive site.) In that paper he makes aviation writer Phil Klass, the primary 'UFO = ball lightning' proponent, look wildly ridiculous. The basic problem is that ball lightning is still today associated mostly with thunderstorms, is small (a mere feet in diameter), and is short-lived.

Originally posted by Harte
...There are many things that are known to certain fields of science that are unknown to Joe Blow who believes he's just seen a UFO. Plasma balls are one of these things,. Atmospheric sprites also fall into this category. So do Earth lights, etc.

This is why scientific investigation is needed. There are many cases which defy explanation even after having been looked at by top scientists in multiple fields.

Originally posted by Harte
The point is, it is true that one can find sightings that cannot be explained away with plasma. However, that doesn't mean the sightings are unexplainable, just that they are unexplained by plasma balls.

That's possibly the best anti-UFO point made by any rational mind in this thread, because it reinforces the idea that we don't like to base our conclusions on a process of elimination. Those who believe there's something 'strange' behind UFOs must acknowledge that the best arguments in support of the ETH (or EDH, etc.) have this logical form: "It couldn't have been A, B, C, D, E, F or G, so it must have been H." But of course we don't know that there's not an I or a J that should've also been considered up front.

This sounds like a fatal blow to any fantastic theory regarding UFOs, and it was my own last stumbling block. For me, stepping away from the topic briefly and then coming back with fresh eyes and a properly-calibrated set of assumptions left me where I'm at now: the ETH (or EDH, or anything similarly amazing) is nearly impossible to avoid.

All that's needed is for us to abandon the 20th-century assumption that 'they' cannot get here from there. Really abandon it. Because it's not a proper assumption.

Then we look at the UFO evidence open-mindedly, being sure to maintain our sense of reasonableness and humanity.

Next, consider the strangest yet still reliable/probable characteristics of those 'unknown' UFOs from that set of strongest cases: they're artificial or metallic-looking, instantaneously maneuverable, responsive and/or seemingly intelligent.

Last, we ask ourselves this question: how likely is it that there's a natural, Earthly phenomenon which mimics those 'unknown' characteristics and so appears to be an artificial, maneuverable and intelligent craft?

Though it's true we can't ever identify every element of the set of things that must be eliminated before the ETH is all that remains, when we're busy contemplating what those new and possibly-explanatory I's and J's might be, we quickly approach the point where Occam's Razor now works against finding a new and mundane space-ship mimicking phenomenon, and in support of the extraterrestrial (or extra-dimmensional, or similarly Earth-shattering) hypothesis.

Ask yourself, could there be a natural phenomenon still unknown to us which manifests to look almost exactly like an artificial craft of other-worldly origin? Or is it more sensible to just say that the 'unknown' probably is what it appears to be?

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

(Since the alien thing is silly to you, I'm assuming you think it's basically impossible, not just that it's simply unproven.)

I think the big question is why would someone believe that aliens are among us? We can see how society has evolved the whole alien concept over the decades, fueled by everything written or made that has fed off this socially engineered concept.

And that is the problem...we can't get past this part by seeing further proof other than the same repeated stuff that can all be socially engineered.

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets

Or, one can recognize that there are many reports of nuts and bolts craft which are seen by multiple witnesses, which are caught on radar, which appear to act and react intelligently, and which clearly outperform anything humans can manufacture ... and one can then either accept that some percentage of those reports may be true, OR completely dismiss them all as the result of some kind of, what, synchronous mass hallucination, which affects even our best sensor systems, I guess?

I guess that is your basic assessment....which is your opinion. Why do we need main stream scientists to study this then if all the things you mentioned have been ruled out? Who ruled these things out? Not main stream scientists. Right? What if main stream science rejects your assessment? What body of science would you consider the most appropriate? I mean you have already determined that these are real intellengetly controlled crafts. Right? I mean there couldn't be any other reasonable explanation. Some kind of synchronous mass hallucination? Oh , there's your straw man.

These cases aren't as clear cut as you make them out to be. Nuts and bolts crafts don't turn out to be so nutsy and boltsy, they turn out to be more hallucinogenic. Something is there that everyone sees but one person happens to see all the detail so that's what it must be. Right? Swirling mandalas of geometric patterns flashing pink Floyd light shows. and the first hand accounts...are in the third person? How does that work?

You want to go solely on subjective accounts to base these things as being reality? Ok. There's a whole body of work of subjective accounts of '___' entities done at the University of New Mexico by Rick Strassman. Whole landscapes of metallic nuts and bolts cities filled with alien like beings. All the participants were convinced they were real. You know all about this and about how this stuff works. You are pretty up on neurochemistry I take it. Can you explain to me how this is ruled out? You are an expert right? Because I'm not.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

And what's with the following statement? You say that "Proof such travel accounts for the entirety or preponderance of UFO reports" is a necessary assumption.

You tell me.

Originally posted by Brighter

By all means, let's hear your reasonable, naturalistic explanation for the entirety of the UFO phenomenon. And understand that such an explanation should be able to elegantly and easily explain all facets - descriptive and physical - of the phenomenon.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

There's more than enough even in the official documents to show that your hypotheses are very weak candidates in the race to explain the entirety of the phenomenon.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
That's incorrect, and not at all logical, and you know it.

Really?

Originally posted by draknoir2

There is no one-size-fits-all explanation for the ENTIRETY of the UFO phenomenon. It was a ridiculous demand and you know it. Each case is unique. Nor is a "theory" based upon pure conjecture and wild speculation the simplest, most elegant of explanations.

Originally posted by draknoir2

What amazes me is the oversimplification required to believe there to be a single explanation for the entire phenomenon, and the best "theory" being one of complete speculation. One might as well attribute it to magic.

Guess it's easier to fabricate an opposing position than read what was actually said.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
Aliens do sell and that does weigh in on my overall assessment of the phenomenon.

Peace sells... but who's buying?

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets


All that's needed is for us to abandon the 20th-century assumption that 'they' cannot get here from there. Really abandon it. Because it's not a proper assumption.

At this point what difference does one more improper assumption really make?