Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Moontanman

  1. 2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    What was the "second" attack?

    Edit: Or rather, what are you saying was the first attack.

    A second flight of Missiles was launched about an hour ago to the US air bases...  

  2. 7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    I feel this was a pretty smart move by Iran. We made a direct, in-your-face, significant attack which they would have felt required a significant response.

    At the same time, they seem to be saying "now let's let it go and get back to our normal way of doing things".

    Ball is in our court.

    Can Trump accept the proposal and possibly see this crisis end? Will he not accept because it would be bad for his base? Will he not accept because he is a megalomaniac?

    Personally I hope we don't respond in kind, but I don't know if that is something Trump will be able to do. He already drew a red line by saying he'd hit 52 sites in Iran if they hit us, which they clearly did, and he ripped Obama previously for drawing a red line and not enforcing it.

    How is a second attack "now lets go back to normal"? 

  3. Who drew first blood... asking for a friend... well not a friend, some sweaty muscular guy with torn clothes just kicked my door down to ask... Um he has a very large... knife. 

  4. 20 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Why is the title and author of this book a secret?


    It is not a secret, the title of the book is "the UFO encyclopedia"  by Jerome Clark and Angela L. Williams , the video is "UFOs the secret history" the relevant section is 37:45 to 40:15 . There are several books with this title but only the one by those authors is said to be the source of the video by the producer of the video. I was thinking of going to the book store and seeing if I could tract down paper back versions since the dates on the book and the film do not exactly match but as the moment I am without transportation but I will get around to it. 



  5. On 11/18/2019 at 9:45 AM, swansont said:

    I see two of them. One of which was a history if the CIA's involvement in studying reports.

    The link spoke to the idea that a cover up was going on. 


    On 11/18/2019 at 9:45 AM, swansont said:

    The other was the Coyne link, and I wasn't sure how that was relevant to anything being discussed.

    The Coyne link was an example of a sighting that has been dismissed as a slow moving meteor. 

    On 11/18/2019 at 9:45 AM, swansont said:

    How much does it cost to provide the citation for it? How did you learn of it if you don't have the book?

    I got the quote from a video, the man being interviewed claimed it. I searched for the quote and or source material for the video and after google and contacting the producers of the video I found the source material for the video was a book currently costing $155, the book is not exactly new so I am hoping the library will have a copy. The video in question has been quite accurate so far in it's information I have been able to check on so I think it would be constructive to track this down but not if my efforts are going to be dismissed as untrustworthy... And yes I was told I could not be trusted on this subject due to my "beliefs" 

  6. SwansonT and Strange I practically covered Page 4 of this thread with citations backing up my statements. It took considerable time and effort to do so the least you guys could have done is commented on them. 

    The quote about the Airforce offering Condon more money is in a book that costs $150 as are the source material for several others. Not something I am going to buy but when I get transportation back I do plan to go to the public library and see if they have a copy meanwhile I would appreciate some sort of answer to my citations for the things I was able to track down. Especially after being accused of dishonesty... 

  7. 56 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    My parents had 100 acres in the country with an old farmhouse and we'd have a party the whole weekend with lots of friends. We would just dig a pit in the ground for the charcoal and have the pig on a spit, turning it every once in a while. We'd usually have a keg, horseshoes, frisbees, weed, guitars, and it would run from early morning till late at night. Everyone would then crash inside or in tents. Brings back fond memories.

    WOW! Now that is a party! 

  8. 2 hours ago, zapatos said:

    Mmm. Looks good! I haven't had a pig pickin' in years. It's an all day party that can't be beat!

    Back when I was young I held quite a few pig pickin's, getting pulled pork trucked in by a caterer is not even close to being able to dig into that whole pig! I had a charcoal cooker on wheels and all the big pots and pans. I did it for fun at friends houses and mine. My only requirement was that my buddy Pepe bethere for moral support... 

  9. 1 hour ago, jmf said:

    Thanks for the reply. I can't find that particular one in Australia and postage from the States is almost the same cost as the actual unit. Does it need to be 2000x or is 1000x ok?


    Hi Moontanman, check out the thread over here about my issue (https://www.fishlore.com/aquariumfishforum/threads/tb-columnaris-or-something-else.427863/). It has links to pictures etc 

    Unless you are a trained microbiologist a microscope will do you little if any good in identifying disease organisms. I once had access to a complete biolab not to mention an actual marine biologist buddy and we found it to be pretty much useless. Your discriptions could apply to a great many fish health problems but fish are notoriously difficult to diagnose. 

    My first question is where did your decorations come from? I violate this rule regularly but the most intractable problem with dying fish I ever tried to diagnose turned out to be rocks collected from around the guys house that had been sprayed a couple years before with a powerful anti termite insecticide. 

    Secondly there are very few common fish diseases that cannot be cured by raising the water temps and salinity as high as tolerated by the fish for a couple weeks. 

    Thirdly and this is the one you are going to hate, either kill them or let them die, let the tank set at high temps and or salinity for a month or so then take it down to more reasonable temps and salinity before adding new fish. It's difficult to do this but sometimes fish will simply bring in something that is close to incurable but many of not most of these intractable diseases need intermediate hosts to survive long term and one they have none the organism will die out. 

    I wish I could actually be there and see and smell the tank, many times your own senses can detect things you  might not think of other wise. If the tank smells bad then your problem is probably outside the fish. 

    Hydrogen peroxide does a pretty good job of sterilization but it takes a while to disperse, a week or more, and pretty much kills everything... 

    Sorry if I seem a bit cruel, I've been doing this for 55 years and if I had all the money I spent on aquarium medications that didn't work I could probably buy me a new car...  

  10. 18 hours ago, jmf said:

    Hi Everyone, I'm new to the forums so a big hello to you all.

    I hope it's ok that I post this here.

    Ok I'm not a science person at all, so please be patient 🙄. I keep many fish tanks and have a couple with a unknown disease. All research and help from the fish keeping community thinks it's a bacterial infection, the problem is it's a guess and I'm over misusing antibiotics for reasons that people here would know. So I'm after a microscope that would be good enough to identity the bacteria in question. 

    Because it's only a hobby, I'm not looking at buying a microscope with anything fancy and would like not to spend heaps on it if possible. I know it's probably a better idea to send it to a proper vet but in my country that is actually about the price of a microscope itself.

    What should I be looking for in a microscope? Is a resolution of 400x ok? or do I need something more in the range of 1000x? Looking here ( https://www.westlab.com.au/blog/2016/12/29/what-magnification-do-i-need-to-see-bacteria) it says that you can see bacteria at 400x, but can you tell the difference between bacteria?


    Thanks 😊


    I am a long time aquarium hobbyist, do you have pictures of the infected fish? A detailed description might help as well. I am not a big fan of aquarium medicines, for the most part they are snake oil... 

  11. 7 minutes ago, swansont said:

    There are many instances where it’s been confirmed that the witness was not lying about seeing something they could not unidentify, so to me this is a non-starter. I’ve seen a UFO. I was able to later identify it.

    I've seen the whole dancing Venus thing several times, it's not unusual here on the coast but it never made me think of aliens just a temperature inversion. I did see huge purple clouds suddenly erupt in the night sky while traveling through the green swamp about 35 years ago. Now that was spooky, we pulled off the road and took photos but they never turned out. Years later I found out it was a NASA venture where they were releasing Chemicals in low Earth orbit to study radiation or something like that...  



    Any theory of the object's being a meteor (UFO skeptic Philip Klass maintains that the object was a "fireball of the Orionid meteor shower") can readily be rejected on the basis of:  (1) the duration of the event (an estimated 300 seconds); (2) the marked deceleration and hard-angle maneuver of the object at closest approach; (3) the precisely defined shape of the object; and (4) the horizon-to-horizon flight path.




    But I would think most people taking drugs that can cause hallucinations would know (afterwards, at least) that it was a hallucination. There are a small proportion who believe that it is revealing a reality that they couldn't perceive otherwise.

    Why odes the old saw "have you been drinking or smoking" always come up when UFOs are talked about? 


    Of course data has quality. For example, "it looked really big" vs "it was 120 metres long and 80 metres wide".

    Of course it does but as I said this is never a qualification when people claim that UFO reports suffer from a lack of data.  


    I am not going to comment on specific things like this. Apart from anything else, I don't trust you to report accurately what was said, given your habit of dismissing explanations out of hand.

    Your opinion is meaningless please give an example of me dismissing explanations out of hand.... 


    Your belief in aliens is indistinguishable from religious belief.

    You are in no position to judge me on this and I have stated many times I do not believe in aliens are you calling me a liar? Or can you show something that indicates I am a liar? 


    And yet, other countries that are no under the thumb of the US Air Force have not released this information that you insist they are covering up.

    Actually they have and admit that many  sightings are extraordinary see France's assessment. But is it true the USA has a considerable influence on other governments but nonetheless UFO reports are world wide but largely dismissed because they are dismissed by the US and so must be what  the US says they are. 


    Perhaps because it doesn't;t exist.

    Perhaps because it does and you being unwilling to consider it are unaware of it. 


    Very similar. So, presumably you would say that people who see angels, experience miracles or have conversations with god need to be taken seriously?

    Strange you are being insulting/disrespectful for no apparent reason... I would suggest that if this discussion pushes your buttons you withdraw from it... 



    According to later estimates from CIA officials who worked on the U-2 project and the OXCART (SR-71, or Blackbird) project, over half of all UFO reports from the late 1950s through the 1960s were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights (namely the U-2) over the United States. (45) This led the Air Force to make misleading and deceptive statements to the public in order to allay public fears and to protect an extraordinarily sensitive national security project. While perhaps justified, this deception added fuel to the later conspiracy theories and the coverup controversy of the 1970s. The percentage of what the Air Force considered unexplained UFO sightings fell to 5.9 percent in 1955 and to 4 percent in 1956. (46)



    At the same time, pressure was building for the release of the Robertson panel report on UFOs. In 1956, Edward Ruppelt, former head of the Air Force BLUE BOOK project, publicly revealed the existence of the panel. A best-selling book by UFOlogist Donald Keyhoe, a retired Marine Corps major, advocated release of all government information relating to UFOs. Civilian UFO groups such as the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) and the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO) immediately pushed for release of the Robertson panel report. (47) Under pressure, the Air Force approached CIA for permission to declassify and release the report. Despite such pressure, Philip Strong, Deputy Assistant Director of OSI, refused to declassify the report and declined to disclose CIA sponsorship of the panel. As an alternative, the Agency prepared a sanitized version of the report which deleted any reference to CIA and avoided mention of any psychological warfare potential in the UFO controversy. (48)



    They demanded the release of the full Robertson panel report and confirmation of CIA involvement in the UFO issue. Davidson had convinced himself that the Agency, not the Air Force, carried most of the responsibility for UFO analysis and that "the activities of the US Government are responsible for the flying saucer sightings of the last decade." Indeed, because of the undisclosed U-2 and OXCART flights, Davidson was closer to the truth than he suspected. CI, nevertheless held firm to its policy of not revealing its role in UFO investigations and refused to declassify the full Robertson panel report. (49)



    At the same time that CIA was conducting this latest internal review of UFOs, public pressure forced the Air Force to establish a special ad hoc committee to review BLUE BOOK. Chaired by Dr. Brian O'Brien, a member of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, the panel included Carl Sagan, the famous astronomer from Cornell University. Its report offered nothing new. It declared that UFOs did not threaten the national security and that it could find "no UFO case which represented technological or scientific advances outside of a terrestrial framework." The committee did recommend that UFOs be studied intensively, with a leading university acting as a coordinator for the project, to settle the issue conclusively. (70)



    Unknown to CIA officials, Dr. James E. McDonald, a noted atmospheric physicist from the University of Arizona, had already seen the Durant report on the Robertson panel proceedings at Wright-Patterson on 6 June 1966. When McDonald returned to Wright-Patterson on 30 June to copy the report, however, the Air Force refused to let him see it again, stating that it was a CIA classified document. Emerging as a UFO authority, McDonald publicly claimed that the CIA was behind the Air Force secrecy policies and coverup. He demanded the release of the full Robertson panel report and the Durant report. (74)


  13. 2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    Hardly the mundane explanation, given that 2'000 years ago, aliens wouldn't be the first or most obvious, explanation...

    Talk about missing the point, then it was gods now it's aliens but the emotional doubling down on something unknown as an explanation for the unknown that has no hard evidence is very much the same... You should google the Contactee movement of the 50s... I know people personally that still cling to that movement and refuse to consider how ridiculous it is... 

  14. 3 hours ago, Strange said:

    Has anyone ever claimed that?

    Yes, in fact mrmack did in the above post. 

    3 hours ago, Strange said:

    If anyone said that everyone were lying, I would consider them just as ridiculous as someone who claims that aliens walk among us and run the government.

    As would I but the go to explanation of lies or hallucinations brought on by drugs is insulting. BTW what drugs exactly cause people to see aliens? 

    3 hours ago, Strange said:

    Volume of data is not the same thing as quality of evidence.

    Lack of data, no qualifier, is often used to dismiss sightings, now the data has quality? 

    3 hours ago, Strange said:

    A single data point could be compelling. But a gazillion bits of low quality data are no more useful than 10.

    Yet there is no guideline for quality of UFO data... 

    3 hours ago, Strange said:

    You really think those are the only two possible explanations?

    Give me another that ticks all the boxes to explain glowing objects hovering over nuclear missile silos that shut them down? 

    3 hours ago, Strange said:

    Sorry, but no. Mundane explanations are based on known, existing phenomena (despite your attempts at ridicule and dismissing them out of hand [see what I did there?]). Any explanation based on aliens is inherently less plausible than any mundane explanation because it is not based on things that are known to exist.

    So slow moving meteors or a comet can explain a UFO when meteors do not move slowly, could not explain an object seen close up,  and comets appear stationary in the sky for weeks? 

    3 hours ago, Strange said:

    Your are being blinded by your faith, here.

    I have no faith, I am an apistevist, but skepticism can be taken to far as easily as faith...   

    3 hours ago, Strange said:

    So, you are saying that either aliens only ever visit the USA, or the US Air Force has a lot more control than seems reasonable. 


    No I am saying it's quite possible the Air Force is trying to cover up their own activities by invoking UFOs and the meme got out of hand early on and they haven't been able to put the genie back in the bottle... Hence the "me too" comment I made... 

    1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

    We could argue over the term "power grab", or wether science/philosophy explicitly teaches humility, but that would be off topic; I'd enjoy the exchange though, if you want to post a new topic.

    I am of the opinion that in the UFO phenomena we are witnessing first hand the manner in which religions form... 

  15. I find it very difficult to assume everyone is lying that claims to see a UFO, I know that some sightings suffer from an embarrassment of data not always lack of data. While I cannot honestly claim that any sighting I know of is extraterrestrial there are a few i cannot discount out of hand either. 

    There was a time, when I was young, I pretty much expected a landing any day. As I became more and more skeptical I realised that unknown didn't necessarily mean extraordinary. How ever if I am honest i have to say that unknown doesn't mean mundane either. There are sightings that are are either straight up hoaxes or actual instances of ET prowling our skies with photos to back up the claims. 

    There are a very small number that, if you have a normal level of curiosity, have to make you are least scratch your head and wonder WTF! 

    I have done a lot of personal research in the "me too" phenomena of human behavior and i think it accounts for nearly all routinely repeated claims of extraordinary things. I'd be willing to bet money that sightings around the polar regions are magnetic or aurora related.  

    Objects that shut down nuclear missile silos are either really extraordinary or faked by the US gov as tests. 

    The Recent Nimitz sightings almost have to be drones or some sort of electronic warfare tests. 

    My main problem with all of this and the reason for this thread, is the way data from UFO sightings is handled. It's not all that unusual for the explanation  to be even less likely that the ET hypothesis... Slow moving meteors or comets? I mean come on, can anyone be dumb enough to even consider those?  Fireflies between the windshields?  Pelicanism is a big part of the debunkers and is just was bad as those who think every light in the sky is an alien spacecraft. 

    I did not want this to degenerate into dueling sightings and yes i think the Air force is covering stuff up, it's not an "if" it's a "what" question... 

    The Condon Report was fixed before it began, it's sad but true, that can be confirmed, I'm still looking for confirmation that the US Air Force Offered more money if what they first agreed to wasn't enough to come to the conclusion they were asking for. And yes The people doing the study, Condon as a matter of fact, asked the Air force what result they wanted. This could have been relatively innocent but it wasn't anyway to start what was supposed to be a scientific investigation. 

    There was some relatively big names in science of the time period who changed sides and became supporters of the ET hypothesis although I think it was mostly because they realised the air force was covering something up. that cover up could have been anyone of a number of things but it made the endeavor look less than honest to say the least.  

    If aliens land next week I'll be amazed but not as amazed as i would be if the moon split in half or the rapture occurred...

    Besides, this is all moot, Trump is going to announce soon that he cannot be impeached because space aliens will invade and he is the only person who can stop them. >:D 

  16. 3 hours ago, swansont said:

    “Citation needed” means back up your claim. Can you point to where they “told them if they couldn't come to the proper conclusion to apply for more money“

    I'm still looking into that.

    3 hours ago, swansont said:

    You tell me. Is there any reason to think the other link is better? If it is, why bother with the bad one? 

    Some are better than others, often the difference is so small or the difference has to do with various parameters one has but the other does not it doesn't matter which one is chosen first.

    I honestly wonder what you kind of evidence it would take for you to at least make you wonder if a sighting was extraordinary instead of mundane...   

  17. 18 minutes ago, swansont said:

    You have presented no actual evidence that contradicts this. Have you pointed to any actual official Air Force commentary? Because this is just anecdotal. 

    Slow moving meteors and comets? You didn't catch that? 

    18 minutes ago, swansont said:


    Citation needed.



    In late January 1967, Condon said in a lecture that he thought the government should not study UFOs because the subject was 'nonsense', adding, "but I'm not supposed to reach that conclusion for another year."[2] One NICAP member resigned from NICAP in protest and Saunders confronted Condon to express his concern that NICAP's withdrawal would eliminate a valuable source of case files and produce damaging publicity.


    In July 1967, James E. McDonald, a confirmed believer in the validity of UFO sightings, learned from a Committee member about a memo Low had written on August 9, 1966, in which he reassured two University of Colorado administrators that they could expect the study to demonstrate that UFO observations had no basis in reality.[15] McDonald, after locating a copy of the memo in the project's open files, wrote to Condon, quoting a few lines from it.[2]

    In response to the memo, on April 30, 1968, NICAP severed its ties with the Committee and Keyhoe circulated copies of Low's memo. Press coverage included an article in the May 1968 issue of Look, "Flying Saucer Fiasco", that presented interviews with Saunders and Levine, detailed the controversy, and described the project as a "$500,000 trick."[16] Condon responded that the article contained "falsehoods and misrepresentations."[17] Scientific and technical journals reported the controversy.[18] Representative J. Edward Roush said the Look article raised "grave doubts as to the scientific profundity and objectivity of the project."[19] He held a hearing dominated by critics of the Project.[20] Low resigned from the Project in May 1968.[21]

    Some later critics of the Committee's work saw little reason to make much of the memo. Committee member David Saunders wrote that "to present Low as a plotter or conspirator is unfair and hardly accurate."[22] Project investigator Roy Craig's later wrote that the memo did not trouble him because Condon had not known of the Low memo for eighteen months and it did not reflect his views.[23] Condon wrote in the Project's Final Report that the memo's description of the Project as emphasizing the "psychology and sociology" of those who report UFO sightings showed how completely Low misunderstood the Project when he wrote the memo.[24]


    In the summer of 1966, Condon agreed to consider the Air Force's offer. He was among the best known and most distinguished scientists of his time. Condon's tenacious encounters with the House Unamerican Activities Committee and other government Loyalty Boards in the 1940s and 1950s made him "almost legendary" among fellow scientists.[4][7] On Condon's behalf, Robert J. Low, an assistant dean of the university's graduate program, explored faculty reaction to the proposed project and found it mixed and wary. He tried to reassure those who found the enterprise unworthy of scientific investigation. Low told the Denver Post that the project had met the University's acceptance threshold by the narrowest of margins and was accepted largely because it was difficult to say no to the Air Force.[citation needed] Some have suggested that finances were factor in Colorado's decision to accept the Air Force's offer of $313,000 for the project. Condon dismissed this suggestion, noting that $313,000 was a rather modest budget for an undertaking scheduled to last more than a year with a staff of over a dozen.[8]

    18 minutes ago, swansont said:


    No. I deal with enough crackpottery here on SFN. I don't go looking for it.

    But I took a look at the links. From the econd one:

    So if one is crap both both are? 

    18 minutes ago, swansont said:


    "The filed report indicates the object was black in color with no structural features. The object size was larger than 300 feet. No exterior lights. No emissions. The object was hovering at less than 500 feet in altitude. The object was over one mile away from the witness. No landing was observed."

    There is no explanation of how this information was determined. Which makes it almost worthless. How do you know if something is bigger than 300 feet and less than 500 feet up, or a mile away? Estimates of distance require knowing the size. Estimates of size depend on knowing the distance.

    If that's the best you have, then the best you have is crap.

    You are gonna have to excuse my inability to use the quote system, something is wrong with my key board today, I can't seem to make it work but a link to this was included.


    If you want to get into specific cases it is really difficult to say one or another is the best. But this one is one of the more extraordinary... 



    ith the unknown object hovering in the air above the helicopter, Coyne and his crew suddenly noticed a light coming out of the aft end of it — a light that swung 90 degrees and came into their cabin.

    “It was a bright green light. And all of the red night lights that we utilize for night navigation were dissolved in this green light — the whole cabin turned green. It hit all of us directly in the face.”

    Coyne and his crew knew they were encountering something extraordinary.

    “We assumed it was a high-performance fighter, but when it stopped directly in front of us, then all four of us realized that was no high-performance aircraft. This craft, from the angle that we saw it, was cigar-shaped. It had no wings, no vertical or horizontal stabilizer, was approximately 60 feet long, 15-20 feet in height.”

    What occurred next was like something out of science fiction.

    “We were at 1,700 feet,” Coyne recalled. “Then this craft began to move slowly to the west away from us. At this time, I was worried we were going to hit the ground, and I looked at my altimeter and our helicopter was at 3,500 feet, climbing 1,000 feet a minute with no changes in the control. We went from 1,700 feet to 3,500 feet in a matter of seconds and never knew it!”

    The helicopter topped out at 3,800 feet and the four men felt a bump, “like turbulence, at which time we had control of the aircraft again. I had control and we went back down to 2,500 feet and then continued on to Cleveland,” Coyne said.

    “As far as the vehicle itself, there’s no doubt in our minds what it looked like. A craft that can move at terrific speeds in excess of 1,000 knots, and then stop on a dime, maintains altitude, can change altitude, climb, descend. To encounter a UFO when it approaches your aircraft, you have no idea what it is. I think if it wanted to collide with us, it could have. You can’t get away from it — you don’t have that much time to respond!”

    Lending credibility to this case were eyewitnesses on the ground who observed the UFO-helicopter encounter. The Army didn’t prevent Coyne and his crew from speaking out about their experience. In fact, Coyne was allowed to recount the UFO incident to the United Nations in 1978, as seen below, under the sponsorship of Grenada.


  18. 31 minutes ago, swansont said:

    It was in the context of the remark that allegedly, seasoned operators could differentiate between real and spurious signals. Which by itself is an admission that not all operators could make that distinction. I read the response as offering the possibility that, if the claim about the abilities was true, the operators were part of the latter group.

    You were also railing on about the Air force, and Philip Klass was (is?) a "senior editor for Aviation Week magazine"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Klass Just one example but Klass's remark that always got to me was his assertion that UFOs were slow moving meteors or comets. Klass did work in some capacity for the airforce as a consultant. 


    In the late 1960s, Klass quietly abandoned his plasma theory and afterwards argued that all UFO sightings could be explained as misidentification of normal phenomena (such as clouds, stars, comets, or airplanes) and/or as hoaxes. Jerome Clark contends[19][23] that Klass argued in favor of hoaxes more than almost any other UFO skeptic, but that Klass rarely had evidence in favor of his accusations; this position was echoed by Don Ecker,[24] who asserted that during a 1992 debate, Klass made unsubstantiated charges of "drug smuggling" against Australian pilot Frederick Valentich, who disappeared in 1978 after claiming a strange UFO was flying near his airplane.

    31 minutes ago, swansont said:



    No? The thrust of the quoted material in the OP is that these are assumed to be spacecraft.


    A large part of the problem is that there are people (some very vocal) who are unsatisfied with "unidentified" as an answer. When you try and give them your best assessment, still others are unsatisfied with that answer. 

    There is a certain amount of dissatisfaction stems from not getting the answer they wanted it to be (a sentiment expressed earlier in this thread)


    "Cover up" implies they knew what was there.


    31 minutes ago, swansont said:


    I certainly hope you aren't talking about crop circles.

    Not hardly... 

    31 minutes ago, swansont said:


    Scientifically speaking, there isn't a lot of evidence, there are anecdotes. If you have a beef that things aren't being investigated scientifically, remember that the Air Force is not a science institution. 

    On the other hand the Air Force did finance the only admitted scientific study called the Condon Report who asked the air force what results they would like and the airforce told them if they couldn't come to the proper conclusion to apply for more money... 

    31 minutes ago, swansont said:

    _ _ _ _ 


    As I said earlier, if there was anything to this, you would expect the sighting frequency to go up with people having cameras. And my comment that our technology has gotten better over time. (This is in a similar vein to the observation that "introduction of digital filters in the 1970s led to a steep decline in UFO sightings on radar.") That's an actual scientific hypothesis one could test.  


    Let me ask you a question, have you ever really looked into any of the unexplained reports the military actually admits to? Minot Airbase is a good one i http://minotb52ufo.com/introduction.php There are plenty more. https://www.mufon.com/ufo-news/montana-air-base-loses-power-as-ufo-hovers-overhead

  19. Philip Klass in the OP link said dumb radar operator when asked why the radar operators didn't agree with the weather inversion. He was semi famous for such remarks and Edward Condon publicly said he would destroy the careers of any scientist who took UFOs seriously. Just two examples there are more Dr Hynek was willing to take that risk not to mention stop the flow of money from the air force because he saw what they were doing had nothing to do with science. 

    2 hours ago, swansont said:


    It sure seems like you are.

    "Yes, I am claiming a cover up!"

    "I can make a very credible argument as to how and why aliens might be nearby."

    "My idea is that aliens are already here"

    These have nothing to do with this thread. 

    2 hours ago, swansont said:


    Why is it that "unidentified" has to mean anything more than "unidentified"?


    When Unidentified in the context of UFOs is more likely to mean explained away by the military in anyway the public can be convinced of. 

    Dr Hynek and others of much less stature academically quit playing the Air Force's game when it became clear there was no study of anything but ways to cover up sightings. The Military has leaked like a sieve with people coming forward with some truly inexplicable sightings the military simply refused to even talk about, civilians have been involved and injured. Ground traces of landing and this is a wold wide phenomena but very few have the means to do more than shrug their shoulders and follow the lead of the US...   

    All I wanted to talk about was how evidence is treated, that has been destroyed in this thread, you can close it...  

  20. 18 hours ago, swansont said:

    Something was observed,. It seemed like lightning, and was spherical. Ball lightning.

    I've actually seen ball lightning, it looks nothing like lightning and if it weren't observed during a thunderstorm, sometimes, a connection would have been unlikely to have been made. There are actually more than one manifestation of some spherical glows that are said to be ball lightning, even UFOs has been explained away as ball lightning. Plasmoids, not the kind associated with earth's magnetic field sounded like a homerun until someone pointed out there was no mechanism for such a thing to form or exist for extended periods of time.. 

    18 hours ago, swansont said:


    Yet UFOs are mistakes by dumb radar operators.... Ad hom attacks piss me off... especially by people who have an agenda and threaten others who disagree with them... 

    18 hours ago, swansont said:

    UFOs are also assumed to be real phenomena. We just don't know exactly what they are.

    In the 1952 washington sighting it was written off as weather inversion even though the sighting could only partially be explained that way and the experts on site said that was not the case. Only people who had not been there with little to no expertise made that claim. The only honest answer was we don't know. 

    18 hours ago, swansont said:

    You are conflating "UFO" with "alien" and it's the latter that lacks evidence.

    No, actually I am not, I am saying the data is always twisted to get a negative, not null, result in nearly all cases, the ones that cannot be twisted that way are ignored or hidden. It's Why Dr Hynek came over to the other side.. 

    18 hours ago, swansont said:

    What predetermined conclusion would that be?

    The predetermined conclusion is always something mundane even though that is often close to being worse than aliens. If you don't know, you should say I don't know, not Venus was reflecting through a layer of haze and caused the pilot to see a V formation of glowing objects buzz his aircraft... 

    18 hours ago, swansont said:

    You can't say it's "there is no evidence that aliens exist" when a) there is no evidence you can present, and b) it's not a conclusion.

    I can say there is data that suggests something unknown is going on and claiming something mundane that doesn't fit is wrong. 

    18 hours ago, swansont said:

    It's the assertion that "it's aliens" that is not taking evidence at face value.

    I am not asserting it's aliens, I am asserting the data is twisted to make some mundane explanation fit.

    18 hours ago, swansont said:

    And who is claiming this?

    Anyone who is saying that going from another star in one go is the only way it can be done. I would say that is the least likely way but that is just speculation. 

    18 hours ago, swansont said:


    The deal about pictures has been with us from the very beginning, too good to be true or not good enough to be meaningful with little to no middle ground.

    I say you are because you lump it all together, some data is more compelling than others.  

    18 hours ago, swansont said:

    That makes the situation I described worse.

    Typo, my bad sorry... 

    18 hours ago, swansont said:

    I said nothing about getting "more dangerous" (and I don't know what that has to do with this) and I think it's objectively and trivially true that our ability to observe things has gotten better in whatever reasonable interval of time you want to pick.

    And yet the really great photos and videos coming out are meaningless, most UFO sightings are almost certainly of mundane things that could be why the actual number of sightings have gone down since we can take better photos now. 

    18 hours ago, swansont said:

    Is that not your position?

    No my position is that no true study of the data, all the data, has ever been undertaken and that ridiculous are often pushed to the point of being almost as unlikely as aliens...  

    18 hours ago, swansont said:

    How does this help your case? That the scientifically unreasonable position was not simply assumed to be the case, just because some people asserted it?

    For quite sometime the "supernatural" in one form or another was assumed by many to be the case until real research was done, can you not see the actual parallel? 

    18 hours ago, swansont said:

    The phenomena was simply unidentified, until enough evidence could be obtained to come to a conclusion. Can you see the actual parallel here?

    Until evidence was gathered in a scientific way all the other explanations mundane or otherwise were meaningless.. 

    18 hours ago, Strange said:

    This is rather the point. Ball lightning is the mundane explanation. And stones falling from the sky have a mundane explanation.

    They are mundane now, not then... 

    18 hours ago, Strange said:

    The only reason they "defy rational explanation" is because there is insufficient evidence to allow any explanation. This does not rule out any mundane explanations. And it certainly doesn't support anything beyond the mundane. 

    Not ture my friend, many events have an embarrassing amount of data, if you read it the sighting  in the OP is one such, weather phenomena could not have explained that sighting yet that was what was pushed like an ostrich up a ducks butt... 

    18 hours ago, Strange said:

    For all cases where there is enough evidence then it turns out the explanation is mundane.

    Citation please... 

    18 hours ago, Strange said:

    You have not provided any examples of evidence being hand-waved away. And all the support for your claims is hand-waved into existence.

    That is exactly what I have provided in the OP, I suggest you read it and put aside your surety it has to be mundane...   

    3 hours ago, swansont said:

    IOW the null hypothesis is not that it's aliens, it's that it's a mundane phenomenon. You need to be able to positively exclude mundane explanations in order to conclude that it's aliens. And if evidence is lacking, there is no way to do that.

    I would agree but pushing the mundane that doesn't fit is not science and I think you would agree with that. 

    AFAIK no scientific study of even a large number of random sightings has even been taken. The first study ever done was rejected out of hand because the man in charge simply refused to believe it, not because of a lack of evidence or due to a large number of scientists disagreeing, he simply we with his own incredulity...  

  21. 4 hours ago, swansont said:

    Not until quite recently but well before then assumed to exist. 



    But I don't see how ball lightning is an example of "hand waving away evidence". It seems to me that it's the opposite of that. A phenomenon was observed, but solid confirmation of it was lacking. What evidence was hand-waved away?

    You really don't see what you just did? Ball lighting had no evidence other than things people claimed to have seen yet was assumed to be a real phenomena. UFOs are attributed to dumb radar operators even when that, if it were true, doesn't even come close to explaining what occurred. The desperation to explain no mater what destroys any possible objectivity... 



    This is called "conventional wisdom" and has been a bane of science for a long time.

    And evidently still is... 


    What conclusive evidence is there that UFOs are aliens? Conclusive meaning you can positively eliminate all other (scientifically reasonable) explanations?

    I'm not asking for conclusions, I'm asking for data to taken at face value rather than twisted to support some predetermined conclusion... 


    Couple with that, what plausibility argument exists that is not based on conjecture and wishful thinking that a piloted or autonomous craft could get here from interstellar distances?

    This simply the same as saying that someone on a log raft couldn't get to North America from Europe therefore no one ever well. The Vikings did it in not much better though a series of smaller steps. 


    Why, with the explosion of the number of people carrying a camera with them at all time, haven't we seen better pictures? (and is there data showing the number of observations has scaled with the number of potential picture-takers?)

    Pictures are either too good to be true or not good enough to matter, not enough of them or far too many all of those have been used to debunk UFOs


    This brings to mind the question of why, as our detection methods get better, do we not find "aliens" more easily? The aliens are far from home, and it seem unlikely that they are doing R&D and deploying new technology "in the field" and there would not be time for new craft to get here with more advanced technology. They are presumably stuck with whatever they had when they left home.


    You are assuming, one all sighting have equal merit, two aliens must travel from their home planet to us in one go, three as we get more advanced we become more dangerous and better tech is used to observe, play, mess up or whatever it is that aliens do. Four, you are assuming they are aliens. 

    There is a cavern someplace in the London Metro system, long abandoned, people who go there are sure they have contacted the supernatural, ghosts, demons ect. It was once and still maybe a popular tourist spot, a few researchers took it seriously and over a period of time were able to determine the acoustics of the cavern was the culprit. 

    At least some legitimate researchers attribute some UFOs to earthquake lights and electromagnetic effects on the human brain when underground crystal deposits are stressed by tectonic movement. No smoking gun really but possible steps in the right direction that writing them off as dumb radar operators will not...  

  22. 4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    Well then, perhaps we should first revisit a few of our exchanges on the religion sub-forum. :-p

    Just explain how multiple unrelated eyewitnesses saw glowing balls of light, said light lights interacted with aircraft, multiple independent radars, Military people on the ground seeing glowing balls, said glowing balls were seen over the white house and the best the air force could do was say weather inversions and dumb radar operators caused it? 

    And Philip Klass said "dumb radar operators" no one who involved in the explanation initially was a scientist or even an expert in the systems being discussed, radar or weather. Now it probably wasn't alien space drones trying to piss off the POTUS but the "Dumb Radar Operator" quip by Dr Klass should have caused him to lose his academic standing at least as a UFO investigator...    

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.