UFO believers got one thing right.

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Jan 18, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    https://www.seti.org/node/3416

    UFO believers got one thing right. Here's what they get wrong.
    Donate to SETI Institute
    Post Date:
    January 16, 2018
    By Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer

    The government did have a secret program to investigate odd aerial phenomena, but that doesn't mean UFOs are alien spacecraft.

    The past few weeks have been good for UFO believers. For decades they’ve clamored for “disclosure” — an admission by the government that it knows of galactic gatecrashers, and that aliens are irrefutably here. This always struck me as a classic argument from ignorance: We lack good evidence to prove our case because it’s been hidden.

    That wouldn’t work in the courts or in science, but hey, it kind of sounds good.

    Well, it turns out something was hidden. In 2007 Senator Harry Reid initiated a secret Pentagon program to investigate strange aerial phenomena. It ran for five years and cost $22 million. Finally, the skeptics — those who doubt that we’re hosting extraterrestrial visitors — had been shown the error of their disbelieving ways.

    Except that the Pentagon study seems to have found no good evidence for visitors. Yes, there was an intriguing military video purportedly showing a cluster of alien craft. But when I watched it, I noticed that the cluster was always in the center of the field of view — which suggests that these “craft” were actually caused by the instruments aboard the plane rather than something in the airspace in front of it. Experts will undoubtedly weigh in.

    What would be good evidence of alien presence? Nearly every day I receive an email or phone call from someone who claims to have seen “something very important” (which I’ve learned from experience is code for “UFO”). They want to chat.

    So what do I do? First off, I generally dismiss witness testimony, or, put another way, stories. It’s not that I think people are lying. But if someone tells you he saw a ghost at the mall, you’ll have a hard time doing much with that information unless ectoplasm hangs out there on a regular basis.

    Witness testimony isn’t terribly reliable in criminal court cases. It’s even less useful for science.

    So I ask about physical or photographic evidence. There never seems to be any of the former, but often there is imagery. Some folks won’t send it, apparently afraid that I’ll sell their pix and deprive them of a Nobel Prize or a photo royalty. The photos I do see tend to show obvious optical effects — often bright lights caused by internal reflections in the lens or color fringes resulting from the workings of the camera’s chip. Other photos show diffraction patterns caused by “hunting” of the camera’s autofocus system. Many people interpret these patterns as spacecraft markings.

    A lot of the images are shot at night, making them particularly hard to interpret. Perhaps daylight is too dangerous for aliens, because then it might be possible to see detail in photos taken of them. I wonder if, when the sun is shining, they hang out underground like bats.

    I’m also wary of anthropomorphic touches — for example, when someone says, “They seemed friendly and just want to establish contact” or “They’re buzzing our missile silos.” The latter is particularly goofy. Any aliens who come from the stars are way ahead of us. If you could visit America 150 years ago, would you spend time inspecting the Union Army’s cannon-making factory at Pittsburgh’s Allegheny Arsenal?

    Hoaxes — and of course there are some — don’t seem to be common. The people who contact me all sound pretty sincere. But the one UFO claim that has zero worth for me is: “I know what I saw.” After all, if that’s what someone asserts, there’s no room for discussion.

    More than anything, I ask myself if the extraterrestrial explanation is compelling — or merely possible. Is the evidence proof-positive or only puzzling? The latter isn’t good enough.

    Personally, I’m mystified by the stage illusions of David Copperfield. Did he really walk through that giant fan, or is that only a possibility? Just because I don’t know what really happened is hardly reason to conclude that he can saunter through whirling metal blades without chopped Copperfield flying into the audience.

    The Pentagon study is certainly interesting, but not because it proves alien visitation. Of course, you can be sure that the “disclosure” folks will soon be claiming that UFO evidence is still being covered up. Conspiracy theories never end.

    In the era of Google Earth, when every square yard of the continents has been photographed and put online, it’s hardly surprising that we have an unsatisfied craving to explore the unknown, to do what Columbus, Magellan, Cook, and others did a half-millennium ago.

    Of course, in the 21st Century, a sailing vessel may no longer satisfy that need. A sailing saucer just might.


     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    10,237
    Pad your thread is nonsense .

    [redundant copy of opening post deleted by moderator]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 19, 2018
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    10,237
    Pad you are out of date . So is Seth .

    As all deniers , they never investigate the evidence .
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,349
    Seventy years, no evidence.
     
  8. sweetpea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    837
    I can see River's extensive evidence in his/her OP doesn't impress you. Just in case you missed it, I will repeat it:

    And the evidence in his/her second post is also as compelling. In case you also missed that evidence I will repeat it here:

    That should really have you thinking.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  9. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,349
    Sorry, I was feeding the unicorns and missed that.
     
  10. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,751
    that is a very outdated term. now they are called 'my little pony' and come in a rainbow of colors, not just white.
     
  11. sweetpea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    837
    I think your a little mixed-up River. Real unicorns are white. 'My little Pony' is a toy.
     
  12. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,751
    where is the real unicorn? since you are big on tactile evidence. where can i pet one?
     
  13. sweetpea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    837
    What! don't you know? Some class clown you must have been.
     
  14. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,751
    you are the one that said it was real. you have repeatedly stated that one should have concrete evidence of what is real. you made the stupid mistake of differentiating unicorns from my little pony. so cough it up or stop being such a ninny or is that the last unicorn?
     
  15. sweetpea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    837
    Warning, I think some of the pictures in the following link are fake.
    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/271271577526365443/

    Given the subject, shouldn't that be whinny.
     
  16. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,751
    those are horses with a hot-glued spray painted glitter stick on it's forehead. that's animal cruelty. twitter peta or the aspca this outrage asap. it is also patronizing, undignified and disrespectful. why are the animal rights activists so suspiciously silent on this? are they embarassed to speak out? what hypocrites they are. what's next? high heel horseshoes?

    you are so deluded you can't tell the difference between a whinny and a real unicorn.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2018
  17. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,666
    Oh brother...
     
    exchemist likes this.
  18. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,349
    I just look to see if you posted the whingey.
     
  19. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,751
    granted, it's not as bad as when i put a dress on my cat with a bright pink bow and it was a 'he' but figured he didn't care. well, he did care and he knew as he refused to go outside but that was my fault.

    i just dispelled the huge unicorn myth and i get no thanks. it's okay but i had to burst ya'll's bubbles.
     
  20. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,349
    You just declared you're the winner before you ever started fighting. Depressive!
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    I wasn't going to answer your thread river, but the extreme delusional maladies you exhibit, has me rather worried. Let's clear up a few things...firstly you do get a consolation point, for not replying in the sciences section as it was a scientific article. But for you, that's where it ends. In essence, the only person that is not investigating these things is you....I'm sure we all know that.
    The most important part of the article in my opinion is "More than anything, I ask myself if the extraterrestrial explanation is compelling — or merely possible. Is the evidence proof-positive or only puzzling? The latter isn’t good enough"
    And the most important observation one can make about you, judging on the context of the majority of your "one liner posts", is that you have a penchant towards the mysterious, the supernatural and the paranormal, while actually never really researching the topic yourself. Your past claim re an Alien conducted Atomic war on Mars highlights this rather weird penchant of yours, and your undoubted ability to sensationalize, in melodramatic fashion, any apparent gap or uncertainty in any scientific aspect by introducing your Aliens, ghosts, goblins, Bigfoots, and any other fairy tale that grabs your penchant. Ahh well you can rest easy in that you are on a forum that condones your type of nonsense, for the sake of quantity over quality.
    Obviously, all other science forums, including one where I now operate, would have you locked up and certified in quick time, if you did not back up your fairy type claims with real extraordinary and empirical evidence. Don't get me wrong, you would be given ample opportunity to put your view/s and the evidence, but you most certainly would not be tolerated with just making your infamous one liner claims without one iota of real evidence to fit the circumstance. I'm glad the article got you worked up though to once again reveal your nonsensical approach to science, the scientific method and how it works.
    Let me also make it clear for any newbie that doesn't know, like Seth Shostak, I firmly believe that in a universe of near infinite size and near infinite content, with the stuff of life being everywhere we look, that we most certainly would not be the only life in the universe...but like Seth Shostak, I temper that belief in the knowledge that as yet, we have absolutely no evidence to show that life exists elsewhere other then on Earth. You continue river, with whatever gets you off...you are always good for a laugh, or two.
     
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,436
    Mod Note

    Because of?

    Essentially, you have simply copied and pasted the entirety of Paddoboy's OP, which can be found here, started a new thread in a different sub-forum, only to say that his thread is nonsense.

    With little to nothing else, aside from your second post:


    Which again leaves us up in the air, since, you know, you haven't exactly detailed what or why everything you copied and pasted from Paddo's OP is so wrong or "nonsense" to begin with.

    A few things here that need to be raised..

    Is there a reason why you felt you had to copy and paste his entire post, start a new thread, just to tell him that what you just copied and pasted is nonsense?

    Is there a reason why you could not respond in the thread he started and detail why it is nonsense?

    I am going to close this thread and send it to the Cesspool. For a few reasons.

    1) It's trolling.
    2) You could have simply cited your reasons as to why you think it is nonsense in the thread he started and the thread you are responding to, which does not need or require a new thread for that response.
    3) If you cannot explain how or why Pad and SETI are out of date, then really, what exactly are you trying to say here?
    4) No one is actually discussing the thread's topic (or Paddoboy's for that matter) and as much as talk of unicorns can be construed as a round about way of trying to prove that something is out there, it's not working as some might have intended.

    Now, there is the possibility that you decided to copy and paste his post into a new thread in Free Thoughts, to try to bypass any evidentiary requirements in the Science subforums, which frankly is a fairly silly idea, since you are responding to Paddo's thread and this site's rules apply to the whole website. In other words, that's not going to save you or this thread.

    A general note to all participants in this thread. If you wish to discuss Paddo's thread, then it would be best to do so in Paddo's thread.
     
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,436
    Mod Note

    Edit to add..

    Ermm, seems that people cannot respond in Paddo's thread as both threads appear to have been merged and closed. My apologies for the earlier suggestion..
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page