Eyewitness accounts and U.F.O.'s

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Originally posted by neoholographic
You can't have anything to do with science but I actually hope you do. This will just show the blindness of some in the scientific community when it comes to these things.

Explain to me why the ET Hypothesis isn't a valid hypothesis.

Well said neoholo....I was being facetious, and maybe it was a bit too encrypted. We never have permission to dismiss the scientific method, just because the observations or topic are of a nature we do not like. The greatest mistakes in my company labs come from presuming that something cannot be, and therefore refusing to allow the techs to pursue investigating it. I recently completed a court settlement over this very issue, which cost us 2 years of advancement on a technology, because someone was so brilliant, they did not have to do any science in order to dismiss the idea. Skepticism did not protect him from legal damages.

Skipping right to step 18, Proof; is not how the scientific method works. I do not believe in ET's - however I also do not believe in cheating and circumventing the scientific method in order to keep a topic squelched. Rather, find it best to promote science once a threshold of plurality in observation has been met. MIT has released a set of principles for the New World of scientific thinking, and principle #8 reads:

8. It’s the crowd instead of experts.

The blocking of access to the scientific method, the tools and the minds and the means of science, though personal brilliance and misapplied 'skepticism' is pseudoscience. Because in the latter enforcement under plurality, if they did exist, .......we would never know.

I am not the only one who thinks this way.

edit on 12-4-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)

Great observations.

This is exactly what I mean. A person who doesn't agree with me about ET but realizes that a position of incredulity isn't a scientific counter-argument.

Let's look at mini black holes for example.

Mini black holes haven't been observed unlike U.F.O.'s. Yet we have scientific theories about these mini black holes.

Some people think if we create mini black holes they will evaporate. Others like Randall-Sundrum think these black holes would embed themselves in space-time and not evaporate.

My point is we have a serious scientific discussion on this and we haven't even observed mini black holes. Yet we can't discuss U.F.O.'s or the ET Hypothesis in a scientific way because it doesn't agree with a persons belief system?

I think more scientific discussion and research about U.F.O.'s will focus the conversation and will lead to the origin of some of these U.F.O.'s.

Originally posted by neoholographic

Let's look at mini black holes for example.

Mini black holes haven't been observed unlike U.F.O.'s. Yet we have scientific theories about these mini black holes.

Unlike UFO's, black holes are mathematically predicted by long existing and tested theories.

Try again.

reply to post by draknoir2


You need to go back and read what I said again.

I said mini black holes, not black holes, do you know the difference?

There's a difference between a mini black hole forming from high energy collisions and a black hole that forms from a collapsed star.

Mini black holes have never been observed but massive black holes have. Some people say mini black holes will not be created. Yet we have a serious scientific discussion about mini black holes that have never been observed.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic


I generally agree with you. But why are we skipping over a whole bodies of science? We are talking about witness testimony and their perceptions. Correct? So shouldn't we be looking at that body of research first and deferring to those experts? Instead we skip to aliens?

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic

 

I generally agree with you. But why are we skipping over a whole bodies of science? We are talking about witness testimony and their perceptions. Correct? So shouldn't we be looking at that body of research first and deferring to those experts? Instead we skip to aliens?

This is the problem. You think people have to skip to aliens to reach the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist and some U.F.O.'s are controlled or piloted by extraterrestrials.

The 3 questions the ET Hypothesis asks is this:

1. Do extraterrestrials exist?

2. Have they visited us?

3. How could they get here?

I showed earlier how all 3 questions have accumulated evidence over the years. Now 2 people can look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions.

The problem occurs because some people can't accept that people reached these conclusions through a reasoned process. Everyone who has reached these conclusions didn't just skip to aliens.

It's like people just woke up one morning and said I think I will believe in aliens today. No, theres a lot of evidence out there.

Now you may look at the evidence differently. For instance, I may research an abduction case and come to the conclusion it's credible and I can see this as support for the ET Hypothesis. You could look at the same evidence and reach a different conclusion.

What you can't do is act like there isn't any evidence that supports th ET Hypothesis because you draw different conclusions from the same EVIDENCE.

So you can say you haven't reached this conclusion but you can't say that this conclusion can't be reached based on the EVIDENCE.

NOBODY HAS TO SKIP TO ALIENS BECAUSE THERE'S TONS OF EVIDENCE TO BUILD A HYPOTHESIS!

In the United States of America, we have someone who is supposed to monitor our skies for things that don't 'belong' there, it's called the U.S. Air Force. Leaving aside the 'who' or 'what' that may/may not be flying these darn things, the Air Force (and other agencies) are capable of what, tracking something the size of a pencil 200 miles in orbit or something like that? There are probably a lot of uncorrelated radar/visual targets that they attempt to intercept, using the most sophisticated air intercept radars our little angry monkey brains can devise! And they RECORD that data. Where is it, and why can't they put it on the internet were we can all take a gander at it? News flash to the Air Force, it's called a thumb drive! So, if you see on the news, a small plane was shadowed by the Air Force today ... So what? I think, no, I know, that we could make a whole lot better of an effort, and besides, the Air Force has already specifically tasked pilots and aircraft with intercepting none other than, you guessed it, U.F.O.'s! I suppose it comes down to the utterly lame premise that 'We can't do anything about engaging them anyway, so why upset the public' ? Another news flash, the public is already upset, and I'll use a word that's like fingernails on a chalk board for ya. Transparency. It's 2013. Spaceflight is mainstream. How about taking the $700,000 that we're going to blow on landscaping at the ambassadors house in Belgium (a place where probably the best UFO photo ever was taken) setting aside some hot pilots (heard the Thunderbirds and the best of the best, Blue Angels! aren't doing much these days) a couple of F-22's and tell these guys to get the 'money shot'. I don't think it would take long. Cheers!

Guess that depends on how much weight anecdotal evidence carries.

Relevant quote from J. Allen Hynek's book The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry:

Yet the strangeness of UFO reports does fall into fairly definite patterns. The "strangeness spread" of UFO reports is quite limited. We do not, for instance, receive reports of dinosaurs seen flying upside down, Unidentified Sailing Objects, or strange objects that burrow into the ground.

A critic of the UFO scene one remarked, "...unexplained sightings do not constitute evidence in favor of flying saucers any more than they consitute evidence in favor of flying pink elephants." What he failed to realize was that the strangeness spectrum of UFO reports is so narrow that not only have pink elephants never been reported but a definite pattern of strange "craft" has [emphasis in original]. If UFOs indeed are figments of the imagination, it is strange that the imaginations of those who report UFOs from all over the world should be so restricted.

source

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
I generally agree with you. But why are we skipping over a whole bodies of science? We are talking about witness testimony and their perceptions. Correct? So shouldn't we be looking at that body of research first and deferring to those experts? Instead we skip to aliens?

Like I said, I do not believe in aliens. But I do believe in a curious and disciplined mindset. It is a very profitable habit! But you guys in the UFO community are having some classic blocking and screening tricks played on you by an unscrupulous group.

A good reading start is Schopenhauer's, The Art of Being Right (quote below from Wikipedia)

In Volume 2, § 26, of his Parerga and Paralipomena, Schopenhauer wrote:

The [38] tricks, dodges, and chicanery, to which they [men] resort in order to be right in the end, are so numerous and manifold and yet recur so regularly that some years ago I made them the subject of my own reflection and directed my attention to their purely formal element after I had perceived that, however varied the subjects of discussion and the persons taking part therein, the same identical tricks and dodges always come back and were very easy to recognize. This led me at the time to the idea of clearly separating the merely formal part of these tricks and dodges from the material and of displaying it, so to speak, as a neat anatomical specimen.

I have taken Schopenhauer's work, and expanded on it greatly, by observing the tactics of cut-thoat competition amongst my researchers and engineers - and the tactics of corruption in developing nations which I advise. The tactics of deception and control are very subtle. This allows me to spot those in my firms who have a love for the subject and the research - and distinguish them from those who are simply there to protect their turf or for greed. The latter two cost me money.

Originally posted by neoholographic

This is the problem. You think people have to skip to aliens to reach the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist and some U.F.O.'s are controlled or piloted by extraterrestrials.

i don't see it as a problem. It's perfectly fine to think the way you want.

The 3 questions the ET Hypothesis asks is this:

1. Do extraterrestrials exist?

I don't know.

2. Have they visited us?[

I don't know.

3. How could they get here?

I don't know.

I showed earlier how all 3 questions have accumulated evidence over the years. Now 2 people can look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions.

I'm not sure you showed that but ok.

The problem occurs because some people can't accept that people reached these conclusions through a reasoned process. Everyone who has reached these conclusions didn't just skip to aliens.

I can accept reason just fine. I am actually came to the same conclusions a few years back but reevaluated the reasoning. What seems to be the case for me is there just isn't enough understood about how people perceive. It's very complex. It's a touchy subject because of the negative connotations. Nobody wants to be told they didn't see what they thought they saw. Even the suggestion of the possibility brings hostility. So a whole other possibility is ignored and avoided.

There is also plenty of evidence to suggest a purely psychological explanation but I don't let myself jump to that conclusion either. So right now, I reject the ETH and prefer to look at this from a different perspective.

And that's perfectly fine.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic


It's logical trickery

How about dissecting this even further. U.F.O.'s exist = Yes. if so, are they flown by aliens = unkown. Are U.F.O.'s actually 'aliens' themselves = unknown, are the U.F.O.'s us? = Yes AND No. (Yeah, the Universe works like that) could U.F.O's get here ? = yes (How can I support this? I propose truly, highly advanced civilizations can exist, and they can do this because they don't 'live' on planets, they live on vast networks of ships, and they only stop by and harvest planets as they need too, to keep the fleet going. They live this way because they got all science-guyed up, and said, Wow, we gotta get out of here, did you see how the Universe smacked down that planetary system over yonder? Hey, I got the answer! Roadtrip! (I can actually see smart, advanced species doing that, I would imagine, they have a sense of humor!, oh please, please, please ) There was talk earlier in this post about 'black holes' and mini-black holes being 'theoretical' models of what we think they might be, again, trying to explain a thing that they SAY is There and Not There at the same time. Like that cat in the box because I'm to tired to think up (Schreodinger's?) name. To paraphrase, the place we live in, the Universe, is stranger than we can imagine, and it's getting worse all the time! Dr. Michio says 'Think, millions of years advanced' when you talk about E.T. I am. There could be fleets out there, we don't know. Why, cause our science guys are working on it, but, basically, we're still angry monkeys that can add/subtract kind of ok. Plus, our deep space tracking network BLOWS! This has been an enlightening post. Thanks all!

Originally posted by bigfootgurl
Relevant quote from J. Allen Hynek's book The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry:

Yet the strangeness of UFO reports does fall into fairly definite patterns. The "strangeness spread" of UFO reports is quite limited. We do not, for instance, receive reports of dinosaurs seen flying upside down, Unidentified Sailing Objects, or strange objects that burrow into the ground.

A critic of the UFO scene one remarked, "...unexplained sightings do not constitute evidence in favor of flying saucers any more than they consitute evidence in favor of flying pink elephants." What he failed to realize was that the strangeness spectrum of UFO reports is so narrow that not only have pink elephants never been reported but a definite pattern of strange "craft" has [emphasis in original]. If UFOs indeed are figments of the imagination, it is strange that the imaginations of those who report UFOs from all over the world should be so restricted.

source

edit on 12-4-2013 by bigfootgurl because: (no reason given)

Thats an interesting quote. I think I disagree with it though. The "Pink Elephant" does indeed get reported. I would take the pink elephant to mean every other paranormal experience. It's not as Hynek describes "dinosaurs flying upside down" but a whole slew of things like ghosts and religious apparitions to name a few. People see and experience all kinds of things and it is greatly influenced by their culture. One persons alien craft is another's angel.

There is a pattern to hallucinations also. Hallucinatory imagery often consists of swirling geometric patterns. There is also a pattern to dreams. People dream very similar things. Flying, falling, cigars and the pee that never ends. People see the same things in ink blot tests and they see the same pareidolia and optical illusions. People see and experience similar things in random patterns. Everyone sees the same beings when they take dmt. They even have a name, " machine elves".

Even in nature, circles and swirling patterns are very common and that's probably why you don't see upsidedown flying dinosaurs but instead see circular objects of various configurations. Im not even sure flying upside down dinosaurs occurred in any dream or hallucination ever. Magical beings are pretty common though. I'm not sure I follow his logic here.

The thing about UFOs is that it seems more real. "Craft" is better than ghost. A UFO is just another label for something we can't explain. That's what I think.

Hynek was a smart man, but I have seen some of his other quotes and I don't think psychology was his strong suite.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


I don't know, ole J. Allen was a good scientist and went into the whole U.F.O. thing with his eyes wide open. He approached it scientifically, and as far as the U.F.O. aspect, he believed something was going on, but I don't think he was ever really prepared to make the leap to these observations being associated with Alien Intelligence. I am convinced, by years of long observation and the quality and character of some of the eye witness testimonies, photo evidence, and some residual artifacts that something is up there. It can't be denied. Then we get to the big if's. like what they are and where do they come from! Also, what does the government know and what information have they NOT made available to the public.? There are some anecdotal things you can look at that are now out, which like come directly from the government, on what steps to take, in the event an alien spacecraft lands. Like what Marines standing guard duty should do if they see one. Or what precautions first responders like fireman and police officers and paramedics should take. These have appeared and disappeared from documentation at various times during the 'modern' U.F.O. experience. (post 1947) If you've ever seen the movie 'The Thing', the original, that last lines of dialogue in the movie is the reporter who gets on the radio to make is story report, and at the end, he says "Watch the skies, KEEP watching the skies". I think that is very appropriate. Not that I think little green dudes or Konos and Kang are up there, but we do have a huge repository of observational data to look at, even though we haven't observed the actual phenomena directly. I think that's how we tripped across the neutrino and the 'mystical' higgs-boson.

reply to post by CarbonBase


I understand where your coming from. Unfortunately, one of my favorite authors already wrote the book I was working on. So it may take me a while to get to where you are at.

ufocon.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Like I said, I do not believe in aliens. But I do believe in a curious and disciplined mindset. It is a very profitable habit!

But you guys in the UFO community are having some classic blocking and screening tricks played on you by an unscrupulous group.

A good reading start is Schopenhauer's, The Art of Being Right (quote below from Wikipedia)


I have taken Schopenhauer's work, and expanded on it greatly, by observing the tactics of cut-thoat competition amongst my researchers and engineers - and the tactics of corruption in developing nations which I advise. The tactics of deception and control are very subtle. This allows me to spot those in my firms who have a love for the subject and the research - and distinguish them from those who are simply there to protect their turf or for greed. The latter two cost me money.

Aside from highlighting your self-importance, what have you actually said about basing a purely speculative "hypothesis" on anecdotal evidence? How is this indicative of a "curious and disciplined mindset"?

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Like I said, I do not believe in aliens. But I do believe in a curious and disciplined mindset. It is a very profitable habit!

But you guys in the UFO community are having some classic blocking and screening tricks played on you by an unscrupulous group.

A good reading start is Schopenhauer's, The Art of Being Right (quote below from Wikipedia)


I have taken Schopenhauer's work, and expanded on it greatly, by observing the tactics of cut-thoat competition amongst my researchers and engineers - and the tactics of corruption in developing nations which I advise. The tactics of deception and control are very subtle. This allows me to spot those in my firms who have a love for the subject and the research - and distinguish them from those who are simply there to protect their turf or for greed. The latter two cost me money.

Aside from highlighting your self-importance, what have you actually said about basing a purely speculative "hypothesis" on anecdotal evidence? How is this indicative of a "curious and disciplined mindset"?

I'm reading some ambiguity. This "unscrupolous group" is blocking my attempts at uncovering the hallucinatory aspect of these cases.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


It's ethical trickery.

Eyewitness testimony is really the domain of people that study the brain like neurologists and biologists or neuro-biologists. What would they say about UFO cases? Oliver Sacks happens to fit this bill and does have a lot to offer on this very topic.

ufocon.blogspot.com...

“The testimony of eyewitnesses is notoriously subject to suggestion and to error. [Page 21]

“Elizabeth Loftus, the psychologist and memory researcher, has documented a disquieting success in implanting false memories by simply suggesting to a subject that he has experienced a fictitious event. [Page 21]

“… in the absence of outside confirmation, there is no easy way of distinguishing a genuine memory … from those that have been borrowed or suggested between what the psychoanalyst Donald Spence calls “historical truth” and “narrative truth.” [Page 21]

“There is, it seems, no mechanism in the mind or brain for ensuring the truth … of our recollections. We have no direct access to historical truth, and what we feel or assert to be true.

“There is no way by which the events of the world can be transmitted directly or recorded in our brains … [Page 21]

“… subjectivity is built into the very nature of memory. [Page 21]

For the most part the people who claim to be abducted by aliens are not lying when they speak of how they were taken into alien spaceships, any more than they are conscious of having invented a story—some truly believe that this is what happened.

Once such a story or memory is constructed, accompanied by vivid sensory imagery and strong emotion, there may be no inner, psychological way of distinguishing true from false—or any outer, neurological way. The physiological correlates of such memory can be examined using functional brain imaging, and these images show that vivid memories produce widespread activation in the brain involving sensory areas, emotional (limbic) areas, and executive (frontal lobe) areas—a pattern that is virtually identical whether the “memory” is based on experience or not.

This should be required reading
Full article

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


You're making several huge mistakes.

First, I wouldn't mind looking into how psychology relates to some U.F.O. cases as well as abduction cases and this is because I have an OPEN MIND.

Unlike those who oppose the ET Hypothesis and Ufology who are CLOSED MINDED.

You claim eyewitness accounts are not reliable and then you post an article that supported by an eyewitness account from the skeptic Michael Shermer. OH THE IRONY!!

Here's what the article you posted said and you can't make this stuff up.

And here is an account from Michael Shermer, who is director of the Skeptics Society (known to many of you), which appeared in Shermer’s Scientific American column, relating a UFO abduction (yes!) he experienced, after a grueling bike marathon he participated in:

“In the wee hours of the morning of August 8, 1983, while I was traveling along a lonely rural highway approaching Haigler, Neb., a large craft with bright lights overtook me and forced me to the side of the road. Alien beings exited the craft and abducted me for 90 minutes, after which time I found myself back on the road with no memory of what transpired inside the ship….My abduction experience was triggered by sleep deprivation and physical exhaustion….I was sleepily weaving down the road when my support motor home flashed its high beams and pulled alongside, and my crew entreated me to take a sleep break. At that moment a distant memory of the 1960s television series “The Invaders” was inculcated into my waking dream. In the series, alien beings were taking over the earth by replicating actual people, but, inexplicably, retained a stiff little finger. Suddenly the members of my support crew were transmogrified into aliens. I stared intensely at their fingers and grilled them on both technical and personal matters “

WHY DO YOU ACCEPT SHERMER'S ACCOUNT?? How do you know he's not lying? Why do you give Shermer credibility and not pilot, police officers and more?

Again, I have no problem with studying how psychology plays a role in Ufology and Abduction cases but it's absolutely silly to say because Michael Shermer had a hallucination that every photo, video, eyewitness account that has accumulated over the years is a hallucination. That's just like saying all U.F.O.'s are extraterrestrial. That's just silly.

Why are you giving so much weight to Shermer's ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE? LOL

This is just too funny.

First the fact is you can use anecdotal evidence along with other evidence to build a hypothesis. Nobody said this is scientific evidence. A hypothesis is based on scientific evidence like observed phenomena. There are plenty things that are not supported by scientific evidence but it's science.

For instance, string theory, hawking radiation, holographic principle, mini black holes and more. So when people act like anecdotal evidence doesn't hold any value, this is just a way to go after things like ufology and the paranormal. Yes, anecdotal evidence can be used in science when building a hypothesis.

For instance, if you have an accumulation of people coming in with swelled feet and the common denominator between them is they're taking Plavix, you can then build a hypothesis that a side effect of Plavix is swelled feet. There's no scientific evidence that Plavix causes swelled feet just like there's no scientific evidence that U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials. It's a hypothesis that's a big part of the scientific process.

The ET Hypothesis is based on the observed phenomena of U.F.O.'s.

Also, 2 people can look at the same EVIDENCE and reach a different conclusion. Lokk at Quantum Mechanics. You have some that believe Copenhagen is correct and the wave function collapses because the wave function is a mathematical description of the Observers uncertainty. You have others who believe Many Worlds and the wave function doesn't collapse.

This is different people looking at the same evidence and reaching different conclusions. Science will eventually show us which interpretation is correct. My point is the skeptic look at the same evidence and reaches a conclusion. They say this photo is fake or this eyewitness account is a hallucination. They then act like there's no evidence to build the ET Hypothesis. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SAME EVIDENCE JUST REACHING DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS!

So, like I said, I can accept your assertion that some U.F.O. sightings may have a psychological component based on Shermer's account,. The problem is people don't want to accept that we can study the same EVIDENCE and reach a different conclusion.