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.
Originally posted by jclmavg
I'm not so sure they'd be that interesting, why expect a fair appraisal? Any idiot can call himself a skeptic, and it is fairly obvious that the label suffers abuse from a-intellectual deniers. It's why the late Truzzi left CSICOP, pseudo skepticism is real. You see this all over the internet, people with no academic credentials/degrees spout off about how they're all into science and skepticism, yet don't have a clue at all. It's more of a feel good club than anything else.
Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
I can't imagine how you'd justify not laying your views out there now.
Originally posted by ImpactoR
reply to post by Harte
So it's all plasma balls, is this what you are saying? That there hasn't been any cases of actual unidentified craft (of whatever origin, even human). Even when there are clear cases of aircraft or devices/drones, despite the many misidentifications of lots of other cases? That would be quite bad and wrong to think.
Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Originally posted by draknoir2
Do you do anything BUT the straw man routine?
Above you avoided my questions by saying "it just might be that your "skeptics" won't say what you want them to under direct questioning because it would be a misrepresentation of their position."
Even if true (and it's not), that couldn't possibly apply here, correct? Because I clearly said "feel free to offer something more open-ended", and then near the end, "Again, if you'd prefer to just offer your opinions in a more open-ended manner, fine with me."
Originally posted by Harte
(snip)
....Surely you must realize that most "unexplained" cases remain unexplained due to a complete absence of evidence other than eyewitness accounts. If an eyewitness makes a claim, and the witness is reasonably legitimate, unless an investigator can come up with some corroboration the case must remain "unexplained."
I believe scientists have studied the phenomena objectively. There are a number that have, and you would know this if you are scincerely interested in the topic. Sturrock and the AIAA are skeptical of the Condon reports conclusions but still offer no new knowledge or insight into the cause of the unexplained phenomena.
Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
I'll number these questions, for the sake of organization and discussion, but feel free to offer something more open-ended....
1) Do you believe science has objectively studied the phenomenon?
If we look at the history and incidence of UFO, the vast majority do have mundane explanations. However, there are numerous unexplained incidence that cannot be ignored or dismissed. I think that one could argue that those numerous cases could be explained if given greater time, resources and as much data and knowledge as possible.
2) Do you believe all UFO reports ultimately have a mundane explanation? (That Earthly explanations always exist, but are just are not found due to lack of time, resources, data. knowledge and so on?)
3) If you believe that all UFO reports do not necessarily have a mundane explanation, then, given the information that we have now, what hypotheses do you think best explain the remaining, residual unknowns? (A cascade of working hypotheses. And that's plural, so there's no need for your one-size-does-NOT-fit-all objection. Everyone knows there are likely multiple explanations.)
4) Do you believe the extra-terrestrial hypothesis is viable? Extra-dimensional? (Or more generally, do you suspect any other intelligence is involved?)
5) If you think the ETH is not viable, why not? (Since that's the only one that fits sufficiently well into our current physics, I'll refrain from asking the same about the EDH, etc.)
Again, if you'd prefer to just offer your opinions in a more open-ended manner, fine with me. However... if you want to be perceived as more than a minor, tricky annoyance, you do need to put your own views out there.
That's why the incentive structure of contemporary scientists is such that they will not accept
alien visitation unless they must, which would be when they get irrefutable physical proof.
I have read the reports. The entire Archive is available online. All the Projects,Sign, Grudge, Stork- Blue Book are there.
Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Have you read up on early UFO history? Because unfortunately, what you imply above was refuted long ago by the Air Force itself. They and Battelle teamed up to produce Blue Book Special Report 14. (See especially pages 11-13 and 24-25.) The report was written in the early 1950's, but is, to this day, probably the most detailed scientific and statistical analysis of UFOs ever undertaken. It should be among the first things that anyone interested in UFOs takes a look at. I think it's fair to say that any person not familiar with it has little business offering authoritative-sounding opinions on UFOs.
But back to the central point. The presence in that study of both an "Unknown" and an "Insufficient Information" category tells us that the unknowns are not "unknown" simply due to a lack of reliable information. If you look at page 12, it says that unknowns are "unknown" because the "description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon."
Apply for the moment your assumptions to SETI. Confined to your thought-box they too would need to produce an alien before any signal can be accepted as evidence of ETs. Obviously that's not going to work, since the signal might be the only evidence found. What you are seriously trying to argue is that one needs proof of X's existence before one can entertain evidence of X's existence. Logically this is absurd. In science there exists no rule that proof comes before evidence.
Originally posted by atlasastro
For one to accept ETH as a valid explanation, simply show ET's. Then we can entertain the possibility or the hypothesis that UFO may be explained by the ETH.
Poisoning the well, ad hominem, etc. Because someone wrote a book, he is considered suspect of making money. Well here is a surprise, pseudo-skeptics write books too. My god, they must be in it for the money as well.
Originally posted by atlasastro
I think he has a book on it. Surprisingly!
Translation: "I'm a serious non-scientific pseudo-skeptic and the only acceptable evidence TO ME would actually have to be proof. Such as an alien body or a spaceship. I need no stinkin' evidence, bring me alien meat."
Whilst you may site the statistical significance in the report that distinguishes the quality of "unknowns". Not once in the history of UFO have we been shown that these "unknown's" are actually known to be intelligently controlled by extra-terrestrial beings.
Plenty of cases fit the ETH just nicely, so as a hypothesis it works just fine. Notice how you conflate proof and evidence, again. How's them windmills?
But ultimately, you know, as does Sturrock, Vallee et al that there simply is no evidence that shows or supports the ETH.
this is a straw man. This statement also shows your misunderstanding of the word "hallucination". Again, you make the assumption that the mundanes have been ruled out. Take your JAL case that is being discussed in another thread currently. I think this would be one of your exceptionally good cases consisting of radar returns and multiple witnesses. Correct?
Any skeptic who thinks the entirety of the UFO phenomenon can be explained by human psychology, misperception, hoaxes and unknown natural phenomena is implicitly recognizing some kind of "mass hallucination" theory, no? Because what else could possibly explain such a case when those mundanes are ruled out to a substantial degree of certainty?
Originally posted by jclmavg
Apply for the moment your assumptions to SETI. Confined to your thought-box they too would need to produce an alien before any signal can be accepted as evidence of ETs.
Obviously that's not going to work, since the signal might be the only evidence found. What you are seriously trying to argue is that one needs proof of X's existence before one can entertain evidence of X's existence. Logically this is absurd. In science there exists no rule that proof comes before evidence.
Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
But back to the central point. The presence in that study of both an "Unknown" and an "Insufficient Information" category tells us that the unknowns are not "unknown" simply due to a lack of reliable information. If you look at page 12, it says that unknowns are "unknown" because the "description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon."
Originally posted by jclmavg
Poisoning the well, ad hominem, etc. Because someone wrote a book, he is considered suspect of making money. Well here is a surprise, pseudo-skeptics write books too. My god, they must be in it for the money as well.
Ummm! Yeah, I read all the same reports TeaandStrumpets did. I pointed out what they really stated. I actually looked at what they used as "evidence". Evidence that was made up of NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS OF UFO REPORTS.
Translation: "I'm a serious non-scientific pseudo-skeptic and the only acceptable evidence TO ME would actually have to be proof. Such as an alien body or a spaceship.
I need no stinkin' evidence, bring me alien meat."
Plenty of cases fit the ETH just nicely, so as a hypothesis it works just fine. Notice how you conflate proof and evidence, again. How's them windmills?
get a room!
Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by atlasastro
I could hug you right now.
Originally posted by jclmavg
Whilst you may site the statistical significance in the report that distinguishes the quality of "unknowns". Not once in the history of UFO have we been shown that these "unknown's" are actually known to be intelligently controlled by extra-terrestrial beings.Translation: "I'm a serious non-scientific pseudo-skeptic and the only acceptable evidence TO ME would actually have to be proof. Such as an alien body or a spaceship. I need no stinkin' evidence, bring me alien meat."
Originally posted by jclmavg
How's them windmills?
Originally posted by draknoir2
Originally posted by jclmavg
Whilst you may site the statistical significance in the report that distinguishes the quality of "unknowns". Not once in the history of UFO have we been shown that these "unknown's" are actually known to be intelligently controlled by extra-terrestrial beings.Translation: "I'm a serious non-scientific pseudo-skeptic and the only acceptable evidence TO ME would actually have to be proof. Such as an alien body or a spaceship. I need no stinkin' evidence, bring me alien meat."
You just defined "straw man fallacy".
From the introduction: "The reports received by the U. S. Air Force on unidentified aerial objects were reduced to IBM punched-card abstracts of the data by means of logically developed forms and standardized evaluation procedures."
Originally posted by atlasastro...
Before I address your other comments, you do know that a significant number of the "sightings" were gathered from clippings from newspapers for the Projects don't you? That these were forwarded to Battelle for statistical analysis.
I don't infer or imply anything except that the unknowns were found to be significantly different. Of course the ETH is one viable explanation. The statistical results speak for themselves:
I won't address the rest of your post because ultimately you are merely trying to infer that the characteristics of "unknown" is somehow a value that should support the ETH. Am I mistaken?
What conclusion do you speak of? I just gave you references to them. Should I post images? And the subjectivity aspect is inherently obvious. Did you not read how that can be minimized?
You fail to include that the Battelle Memorial Institute ... made no such conclusion? In fact they point out that the value of the reports were purely subjective....
You mischaracterize. They say it's not possible to AFFIRM the ETH, nor can it be excluded. Not a subtle difference.
Future studies into the phenomena by the likes of Sturrock as well as other groups like GEPAN and SERPA, EMBLA and Condign all come to the same end, whilst there are genuinely unexplainable phenomena that is being reported, it is not possible to make any conclusion that includes any ETH.
Oberg, et al. sell books too, right?
Velasco, who was involved in SERPA, believes that the ETH is the explantion for the percentage of high quality UFO sightings that cannot be explained. I think he has a book on it. Surprisingly!
Stating the obvious? No ET bodies....
Whilst you may site the statistical significance in the report that distinguishes the quality of "unknowns". Not once in the history of UFO have we been shown that these "unknown's" are actually known to be intelligently controlled by extra-terrestrial beings. Not one. Ever.
Really? Are you a liar, or do you just play loose with the truth?
Originally posted by atlasastro
Yeah, I read all the same reports TeaandStrumpets did. I pointed out what they really stated. I actually looked at what they used as "evidence". Evidence that was made up of NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS OF UFO REPORTS.
Of course no single report should be taken as 100% fact. Nice exclamation point there. As if your point contains some new revelation. Who argues that any single UFO report should be taken as 100% fact?
Originally posted by atlasastro
I actually read that they qualify the evidence as "subjective evaluations and estimations" from individuals not to be taken as FACT!
Originally posted by atlasastro
....How do you even label something as evidence of X without the very existence of X as a known?