Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Oct 10, 2017.
You never know. There may be a verrrry small stone that we haven’t turned over, yet.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It looks like you're slipping back into your old trolling habits.
Why have you not answered the many straightforward questions I asked you about how you determined that your claims are true? Do you intend to answer them?
Previously I asked you how you determined it was flying. You have not answered. Will you answer now?
Now you claim that you have determined that it stopped and hovered in place. Tell me how you determined that.
Tell me how you determined that it plunged into the water.
Nonsense! Balloons can clearly plunge into water. They are especially susceptible to doing that when they burst.
Please tell me the details of this search.
How did you determine that all 14 objects on the radar were the same type of thing?
How many weather balloons are out there, MR?
How did you determine they were spheres?
And what was the wind speed?
How did you use the camera footage to determine they were spherical?
Please explain the steps that you took to determine the 3D configuration from the 2D FLIR image.
Perhaps not by a small number of scientists who have personally studied these matters at a suitable level. (Though that's a misleading idealization of science, I think. Scientists are as vulnerable to ideological group-think as anyone else.) But that's not the issue here, is it?
The issue that I raised was how (what is purported to be) "science" is presented to laypeople (probably 99% of the population). Laypeople are supposed to just shut up and believe what they are told in the name of "science" (it used to be the Bible or church tradition that was treated that way). If they don't, they are attacked as "deniers" or as being "anti-science" and subjected to all sorts of invective, by people who typically aren't specialists in the subjects themselves.
Of course they do. Or if it isn't scientists themselves doing it, it's a whole penumbra of people who have grouped themselves around science and who purport to speak in its name, such as all the "science writers" and activists of various sorts who hope to exploit scientific ideas for extra-scientific reasons. (How many atheists attach themselves to biological evolution without really understanding it, because they think it's a weapon against "religion"?)
And 99% of the population is in no position to do that, are they?
Perhaps questioning is built into some idealization of science. But it doesn't seem to be welcome at all when science filters down to the street-level.
That sounds like "no true Scotsman".
And there you go. How is the denunciation of questioning what are presented as established "scientific findings" even consistent with this statement of yours: "Questioning is built into science"? Aren't people being attacked for doing precisely what people who think in a scientific manner are supposed to do?
My belief expressed in the earlier post that you are criticizing here was that those attacking members of the general public for questioning scientific authority and for not being suitably credulous, are the adherents of "scientism" as opposed to "science". And I fear that we have been seeing much more of it in the last few years. It's not a positive development.
And there's also the question that I asked before: Why is it so important that everyone believe alike? What's wrong with agreeing to disagree?
If somebody disagrees with MR about something, they could just say "I disagree with that because A, B and C" They should try to make their reasons as good as they can make them, and then let others make up their own minds. And be prepared for the possibility that not everyone will end up agreeing with their little gems.
Tolerance of intellectual diversity requires an inner strength that I'm not convinced that many movement "skeptics" possess. Their movement seems to be all about attacking others for having ideas they don't share and about enforcing intellectual conformity. I don't like it.
Somehow "In God we Trust" has turned into this:
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's what is shown on the FLIR video..
That's what it shows on the FLIR video..
Wrong. Balloons do not plunge INTO water. They alight on the surface.
How did you determine they were different types of things?
It's mentioned in the complete FLIR video. 31 knots sustained with 40 knot gusts.
By looking at the FLIR video. Are you claiming it is a flat 2D object? What happened to the balloon?
I take it you are certain the radar video and the FLIR video are of the same incident in time and space. What evidence makes you conclude that?
I gotta say, you could have saved a lot of time and wasted posts if you had bothered to provide even the most basic context when you posted that radar video. You have one job when posting - James has warned you many times about it, so you've got no excuse: Provide useful contextual description when posting a video.
I'm curious why they wouldn't be edited into one video instead of these two separate ones with no explicit connection.
All I can see is that they both seem to be from the Omaha some time in July.
He didn't. You can't clam they are the same unless you have evidence to say so.
FLIR videos cannot show depth of an object.
It could be flat, it could be spherical, it could be a cylinder seen end-on.
Why do you keep drawing these unwarranted assertions? Why are you deliberately obfuscating the available facts? Is this anything more than trolling?
There seems to be a lot more video of UFO's than monsters. Where are all the monster videos?
Has it shut down the conversation, though? It doesn't look like it has.
Also, what's the problem with saying it could be a weather balloon, if it could be a weather balloon?
If you think there's evidence that it couldn't be a weather balloon, we can certainly discuss that. If you think there's evidence that it's something specific that isn't a weather balloon, we can certainly discuss that, too.
Is it sad that Magical Realist can toss out "it could very well be an alien spaceship" and that shuts down the conversation?
What makes Mick West special, in terms of shutting down the conversation? He's just another guy with an opinion, isn't he?
You're back to claiming that Mick West's debunking is sloppy.
The problem is: you haven't shown that anything in anything that West has said or written is sloppy.
If you've found specific problems in West's analysis, then by all means feel free to say so. If you haven't, though, then the vague accusation that the analysis is sloppy just makes it look like you don't like the implications of the analysis, for reasons you're not telling us.
Okay. So it sounds like you're accusing Mick West of ridiculing and mocking claims without taking time to analyse them. Is that your complaint about him?
Can you give us a specific example? Perhaps refer to one of West's videos?
So do I. For instance, one of them turned out (probably) to be the planet Mars, although that conclusion was only partly based on what the eyewitness shared.
Nobody here (and not Mick West, either) has claimed that every UFO must be a bird or a weather balloon.
It's not necessarily far-fetched. There's just no good evidence that's what any of them are. If you have some, great. If you don't, then foreign technology is just one more possibility that is in the mix of conceivable explanations.
It is important to realise that if something is unexplained that doesn't mean all possible explanations are equally likely. To add to that thought: I've already written something on a priori estimates of probabilities, just a few pages previous to this post.
You said "aircraft". You're assuming that the thing that was seen was an aircraft of some kind, in your example. That narrows things down considerably, you realise. If we know the thing was an aircraft, then the question reduces to things like: what kind of aircraft? Whose aircraft? etc.
If we know it's an aircraft then, as you say, it would be silly to suggest it could be a weather balloon (unless, for some strange reason, you want to classify weather balloons as aircraft).
If, on the other hand, somebody just says "I saw a light in the sky that I can't explain", that doesn't scream out "aircraft!" or "balloon!" or "alien spaceship!". We need to dig in and see what else we can dig up on the thing - the circumstances of the sighting, the person who reported it, any independent data we can find on the incident (i.e. other than the eyewitness's statement), etc. If there's enough data, maybe we can solve the case. If not, then it remains unexplained (but not necessarily unexplainable, which is a whole different ballgame).
Of course. If I suggest your UFO sighting was a weather balloon, I should certainly explain to you why I think it was a weather balloon.
I get the impression that you're dissatisfied when people tell you why they think a UFO could have been a weather balloon. Why is that?
"I saw a light in the sky" doesn't carry much of a burden of proof on the claimant. There are lots of lights in the sky. Usually, there's no particular reason why we wouldn't take the person's word for it that they are reporting something they actually perceived.
"I saw a light in the sky I can't explain" has no particular extra burden of proof on the claimant. Lots of people can't explain stuff.
"I saw a light in the sky you can't explain" puts a burden of proof on the eyewitness, because in this case the eyewitness is making the positive assertion that whatever it was he saw, it is "unexplainable". If that's true, there ought to be reasons it is unexplainable, and essentially the eyewitness is implying that he knows at least one of those reasons (but hasn't told us so far).
"I saw a light in the sky and it was the planet Mars" puts a burden of proof on the eyewitness, because the eyewitness is making the positive claim that he saw the planet Mars. It follows that he should be able to provide reasons to believe it was the planet Mars that he saw. After all, something convinced him (at least) that it was Mars, but he hasn't told us what convinced him (yet).
"I saw a light in the sky and it was an alien spacecraft" puts a burden of proof on the eyewitness for exactly the same reasons that the claim about the planet Mars puts a burden of proof there.
It is perfectly fair that the burden of proof is on the claimant to support his claims. Who else do you suggest it should be on?
An alternative that some suggest is that the burden should be on the skeptic who doubts the eyewitness to disprove the eyewitness's claims. But that's silly. If the eyewitness wants the skeptic to believe it was the planet Mars that he saw, the eyewitness needs to say something to convince the skeptic. If the eyewitness wants somebody to believe he saw an alien spacecraft, he needs to convince the person that he actually saw an alien spacecraft.
"I saw something in the sky, and it's the planet Mars unless you can prove it isn't!" is both belligerent and unhelpful. Things in the sky don't default to being the planet Mars; there are lots and lots of other a priori possibilities. The best this (somewhat rude) eyewitness can hope for is that the skeptic will agree that what the eyewitness saw could have been the planet Mars, among many other alternative things it could have been. If the eyewitness wants more from the skeptic than that, then he'd better start giving some reasons why it has to be Mars and not any of the other conceivable things it could be.
I'm not in the habit of judging valid UFO debunkings on the basis of anybody's perceived authority, for exactly the same reasons I'm not in the habit of accepting claims of alien spaceships on the basis of anybody's perceived authority. I'm interested in the evidence.
I consider Mick West to be a competent analyser of UFO cases. This assessment is based on the detailed analyses I have seen from him, including some insightful and downright clever technical analyses of the available data in certain cases. The fact is: many UFO cases have so little data, or data of such low-quality that it is difficult or impossible to make any sort of detail quantitative analysis. West typically doesn't concern himself with those kinds of low-quality cases. He does what he can do with the cases that have data that is susceptible to certain kinds of technical analysis, and he does what he does well.
None of this means that I'm necessarily going to agree with all of West's conclusions, assumptions or methods. Rather than talking about generalities, I would prefer to talk about the details of particular cases.
I am quite open to discussing any flaws you believe you have uncovered in any of West's case studies.
I don't know how influential West is. I'm not sure how you're going about measuring his status as an influencer. I guess you could look at his youtube view counts, or something?
Let's assume you're right and West is beloved of people who like to see UFO reports "debunked". Does it matter? Either West's debunkings are valid, or they're not. Look past the social media "likes" and just concentrate on the analyses themselves. Are they solid, or are they flawed?
Like I said, my impression is that West's analyses are solid. You seem to think differently. So, let's discuss the flaws you have found in his analyses. Pick one, maybe, and we can take a good hard look at the problems you've identified.
Moving on, you also blame West for retarding progress in regards to UFO investigations. That implies that, if West was not on the scene "debunking" things, then the general state of investigations into UFOs would be more advanced than it is, in some way. I am puzzled by this.
Do you think that some other investigators are doing a demonstrably better job of analysing UFO cases than West? Can you name one or two - perhaps link us to some of their work?
Or are you perhaps suggesting that West's "negativity" is somehow suppressing other potential researchers from wanting to investigate UFOs at all? Are the negative vibes he is sending out making people doubt the existence of alien spaceships, rather than getting excited by them and wanting to find out all the juicy details about the aliens?
Do you feel that, in general, the UFO scene would be better off without obnoxious skeptical types constantly trying to spoil the party by suggesting that, just maybe, a lot of UFOs might not be actual alien spacecraft after all?
Do you trust the UFO believers to do a thorough job of getting to the bottom of the UFO reports themselves? (Just for comparison, consider Magical Realist's efforts, on display in this thread.)
No. I dismiss your views on West because you criticise him for such things as "shoddy" analysis, without making any effort to show actual flaws or other deficiencies in his work.
I dismiss your views on West because they sound like groundless character assassination.
Here's what I imagine might be underneath your distaste for West (and what seems to be your growing distaste for other skeptics): I think that maybe you think "Those men (it's mostly men!) think they know everything, but there are lots of mysteries in the world. They are arrogant and over-confident about their own intellectual powers. Who are they to say that there are no alien spaceships? They are far too quick to dismiss every sighting of an unexplained thing as a mundane object. But it stands to reason that at least some unexplained UFOs are likely to turn out to be something unexpected and amazing. Those guys have no imagination, and they all sound like party poopers who want the world to be dull and boring, like them."
If that's something like what you're thinking, then I think it could be a good idea to stop trying to imagine the inner thoughts and motivations of the skeptics, because even if you're right about that (and you're probably not, if the above is an accurate description) what they want doesn't matter. What matters is what can be proven. So, concentrate on the actual products of the skeptics. Look at what they actually do. What do they say about particular UFO cases? Is it based on assumptions, or is it based on the evidence? Are they jumping to conclusions, or are they trying to estimate probabilities as well as possible, given limited data? Are they over-claiming by pretending to know things that aren't supported by the data, or are their statements consistent with the available data?
What if we think merely that the tic tac could be a weather balloon? That is, what if we can't be sure what it is, but we can't rule out that it was a weather balloon?
I'm down with giving reasons for why we might think it could be a weather balloon, of course. But that goes both ways. We need to also hear the reasons why it could be an alien spacecraft. And, it ought to go without saying, we should examine the extent to which both sets of reasons stand up to scrutiny (i.e. the extent to which the reasons are reasonable, given the available data we have).
I have already written quite a bit on the reasons why experienced navy pilots could misindentify a weather balloon (or a whale, or a bird, or a foreign aircraft). I suppose I could summarise some reasons again, if you like, but it feels repetitive.
And presumably, for the same reasons, if you have a tendency to only seek to prove the existence of space aliens, you're likely gravitate towards those who share that tendency. Right?
It seems that the True Believers don't get one up on the skeptics in this battle of presumed biases.
Be specific. If you have a specific complaint about some shoddy piece of "debunkery", please share it. Explain the flaws you see. Pick a specific case. All these generic complaints only get you so far.
Like I said, it's not really about trusting him, for me.
Also, I can't remember who first brought up Mick West in this thread. It could very well have been Magical Realist. But I could be wrong. Maybe I discovered West by accident. I do know that I only discovered his work in relation to things raised in this thread.
Regarding "professional debunker": I don't see why that matters. Are his debunkings valid, or not?
Regarding "sloppy assessments": I'd love to discuss the details of one of his sloppy assessments with you. Pick one and we'll talk.
If that's your concern, I'm not sure why you particularly single out science for criticism. You could have picked any area of expertise or specialisation.
We layperson non-experts are all supposed to accept what musical historians tell us about the life of Ludwig van Beethoven. We're supposed to just believe that he wrote all these symphonies and went deaf in his later years, and so on, because - so we're told - it's all historical fact and because his name's associated with all these musical scores that they tell us have been copied accurately for 2 centuries. If we don't believe it, we're attacked as musical history deniers, or Beethoven skeptics or part of an anti-romanticism musical movement, often by people who typically aren't specialists in the subject themselves.
How dare all these so-called experts tell us laypeople what we should think! The nerve of them! What makes them so special?
Moving on, then:
Typically, one doesn't become a science writer of any renown without understanding at least a little science. But I take your point. People should never join the mob and comment on things they aren't appropriately qualified to talk about.
If 99% of professional scientists say that climate change is real, and 90% of amateur science enthusiasts say climate change is real, and 70% of "laypeople" say climate change is real and 50% of Americans say climate change is real, and 10% of right wing nutjobs say climate change is absolutely fake, it's all just a matter of who you trust. There's really no telling if climate change is real or not. It could be real or fake. Who's to say?
Maybe there's a conspiracy among so-called "professional scientists" and the so-called "green movement" to talk up climate change. What to do? How are we going to sort the truth from the lies? Is it even possible?
99% of the population is in no position to give a credible performance of Beethoven's Hammerklavier sonata. But the methods and materials required to perform it are not secret.
The whole of "popular science" is an effort by scientists and those who love science to introduce some of the ideas and findings of science to the street-level.
I guess you'd call it indoctrination?
Also, doesn't it strike you as at all ironic that you're posting this claim on a ... ahem ... science forum?
If it is, then you should have minimal difficulty in digging up a scientist or two who has demanded that you take science on faith or subscribe to dogma. Right? Of course, if I was then to complain that the person is not a "real scientist" then we'd be back where you started.
In general, though, you might like to think about the last time you heard any scientist demanding anything (science-related) of you. In my experience, scientists aren't usually demanding types, in that way.
The line from me that you quote doesn't talk about "questioning what are presented as scientific findings". It talks about people pretending that facts aren't facts. For example, a climate change denier is a person who pretends that the scientific data does not show that climate change is happening, or who pretends that the scientific data shows that climate change isn't happening, when in fact there is overwhelming science that confirms that climate change is happening.
Deniers are liars. There. That's easy to remember, isn't it?
But again, let's not focus solely on science, lest you take away the wrong message.
The musical history denier is the guy who says there never was a Beethoven, and that all of the works attributed to Beethoven were actually written by a committee of Illuminati members in 1955 over one rather long lunch in a small cafe in Nice, and that all supposed "historical" references to the existence of supposed Beethoven symphonies prior to 1955 are due to a systematic conspiracy to defraud the history books and to silence people who might tell the real story.
Deniers are often nuts, as is turns out.
I don't think so. Got any specific examples?
I wonder: if as many people were as motivated to deny Beethoven as they are to deny science, do you think that there might be more of a visible counter-movement to criticise and attack people who "question" the authenticity of the Beethoven history than there currently is? Would the rise of the "Beethovenists" be the same sort of problem you're highlighting here?
Do you think that, in general, movements in support of mainstream or expert consensuses are a bad idea?
In America, quite recently, a largish group of people staged a violent political protest at the nation's Capitol because they "questioned" the legitimacy of a recently-elected President. A not insignificant number of those involved also expressed "distrust" in American democracy and its systems. In response, a very large number of other Americans vocally condemned the protests of these "questioners" and accused them of not being sufficiently credulous about the purported election results. Was this a bad response from the majority in the position of "power" in this situation, in your opinion? After all, what's wrong with "questioning" the status quo?
Do you think we can ever really know who won the Presidential election? Was it Biden, or Trump?
After all, why is it so important that everyone believe alike? What's wrong with agreeing to disagree?
Well, they've done all that. Haven't they?
Neither did the people who invaded the Capitol, wanting to replace a legitimately-elected President with an imposter dictator.
I'm not sure you've really thought through what real oppression would look like.
Those are ironical. Or pointed. Or a response. Or all of those things. Think about it.
No. That's your interpretation of what the FLIR video shows. But doubts have already been raised as to whether your guesswork is correct, as you know.
I didn't. So, I ask you again: how did you determine all the radar contacts (and the visual sighting) were all the same kind of thing?
That's not far off the 50 knot maximum speed that was reported for the objects. Even a balloon could have been moving at 40 knots, with the wind.
I'm claiming that the FLIR video does not enable us to distinguish between a sphere, a 2D circle, the end of a circular cylinder, a cone viewed end-on, and many other possible things that present a circular cross-section if viewed in a particular way. Worse, the FLIR video does not easily enable us even to verify that the observed circle is a solid object at all. For all we can tell, it could be infrared light reflecting off something or emitted by something (perhaps attached to something else that is not emitting nearly as much light).
I obtained the radar video from Mick West's Metabunk site. He vouches for its authenticity as being video released by Jeremy Corbell of the July 15th 2019 UAP incident on the U.S.S, Omaha. I take his word for it. If you don't, then that's your choice. As wegs points out, you eventually just have to trust somebody to believe in anything.
Again, this is the entirety of post 8173. Look specifically at the lack of context you provided:
When you uploaded it, you provided zero context as to why you were posting it or what it had to do with any previous topic. It was posted exactly as if it was just the next shiny object you found after getting bored with the last one. All you had to say was anything like "This it the same incident from a different sensor." I prodded and prodded and prodded you for context and you refused to provide any whatsoever. That's sloppy and bad faith.
You have been warned, infracted and even suspended for chronically providing insufficient explanation for videos you post. This time is has bitten you on the ass. You have no one to blame but yourself.
Meh...lol! Whine whine bitch bitch. You're coming off as an anally-retentive pedant again. I couldn't care less about what you think I should post. Since when are you the moderator?
Your "anally-retentive pedant" is what the rest of us simply call "clear communication".
We are all well aware that you don't give a shit what damage you do to the comprehensibility of this thread with your bad faith behavior.
As a member, I have the right and responsibility to call out vexatious and trollish bevhavior.
What I was quoted as saying:
What I actually said:
Oh well...looks like another derailing of the thread brought on by Dave's petty attempts to get me banned.
For Pete's sake, please just post video links with a description that provides context to the discussion at-hand.
And, failing that, when asked for clarification, provide it.
That would have saved about 40 posts over two pages.
I don’t believe that space aliens are visiting earth, if they exist at all. I’ve made that pretty clear throughout the thread, but you lump me in with “UFO believers.” Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Before we go further, do you believe that the only two camps when it comes to UFO’s are “space aliens” or “mundane (weather balloons, birds, etc) occurrences?”
I don’t believe you think this way but your response to me above is kind of confusing.
When it comes to Mick West, he is known by his “fans” as a debunker. No question. It matters because he only comes from a mindset of debunking, so his analysis will always lean towards debunkery. Here’s an example - he basically stated in his analysis of the tic tac video, that the movements of the tic tac object “weren’t anything out of the ordinary.” So, why doesn’t the Pentagon agree with him? And experienced navy pilots who witnessed it? We should believe this one guy who is a well-known debunker over the government? The odds that it’s an alien spacecraft are low, but my problem is that he states the movement of the object was nothing out of the ordinary. When your motive is to debunk, you close your mind to other possibilities. It’s that simple, James. I suppose that could be said for UFO/alien enthusiasts, but at least I’m admitting that the bias can come from both sides.
That's James R's favorite strawman. He repeatedly accuses me and Yazata of believing they are space aliens too, even though he's been corrected on this many times. Latest example:
It's always easier to attack a cartoonish position you made up than it is the real more nuanced position of your opponent.
“Here's what I imagine might be underneath your distaste for West (and what seems to be your growing distaste for other skeptics): I think that maybe you think "Those men (it's mostly men!) think they know everything, but there are lots of mysteries in the world. They are arrogant and over-confident about their own intellectual powers. Who are they to say that there are no alien spaceships? They are far too quick to dismiss every sighting of an unexplained thing as a mundane object. But it stands to reason that at least some unexplained UFOs are likely to turn out to be something unexpected and amazing. Those guys have no imagination, and they all sound like party poopers who want the world to be dull and boring, like them."
Wow, James. lol I’m surprised you went this route. But, again, I don’t personally believe that space aliens if they exist, have the capability to visit earth.
I’m not into space alien theories, but I don’t think Mick West is boring or unimaginative…and I don’t have an issue because he’s a man. He’s a garden variety debunker who has found a way to gain social media attention (he’s on TikTok, now lol) and money and praise by debunking. And that’s fine, he can do whatever he wants, but I don’t trust everything he has to say about UAP’s.
I feel like I’m in a really long, drawn out, painful game of chess, but there are no winners. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, that’s why I’m asking if he believes there is room for human-made advanced technology in his analysis of these UAP’s. To me, that is the greatest possibility.
I find it odd that no one knows for sure. But, if we keep calling extraordinary occurrences “weather balloons,” we may never find out. NASA’s latest team designed to take these matters more seriously, hopefully will get us closer to the truth.
Separate names with a comma.