Case Closed On Jerusalem UFO Video

astroengine writes "Skepticism was high after videos surfaced earlier this year depicting a UFO over Jerusalem. However, ufologists defended the sighting, dismissing claims that it was a hoax. But a few days ago, the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), one of the oldest, largest, and most respected UFO investigation organizations in the world, announced their findings about the Jerusalem UFO. Yes, even MUFON has concluded it was a hoax."

Comments

Carl Sagan

[errandum]

Everyone should read this book: A demon haunted world by Carl Sagan

Every era has had their share of unexplained phenomena. Before UFO's there were demons, beasts, witches, etc. The current myth-of-the day is UFO's.

(And I'm not saying they don't exist, just that there might be a simpler reason for all these sightings) :)

Re:Carl Sagan

[errandum]

*The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan

That's the complete title

Re:Carl Sagan

[oakwine]

This is indeed an excellent book. Highly recommended.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Culture20]

Every era has had their share of unexplained phenomena. Before UFO's there were demons, beasts, witches, etc. The current myth-of-the day is UFO's. (And I'm not saying they don't exist, just that there might be a simpler reason for all these sightings)

So what you're saying is that fallen angels have adopted modern stories to continue their nightly activities? I wonder why they shifted from being succubuses to doing anal probes.

Re:Carl Sagan

[BenSnyder]

I was going to say the same thing. I'm reading it now and it's kinda hard to take any alien stuff seriously after he gets done making the comparisons between it and the things people described demons doing during the Inquisition.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Anonymous Coward]

I love that book, and I've seen a UFO

Re:Carl Sagan

[Anonymous Coward]

They've *always* done anal probes. In earlier times it just wasn't acceptable to mention it (*)

(*) except in Greece :)

Re:Carl Sagan

[blair1q]

The current myth-of-the day is UFO's.

UFOs were a lot bigger until about ten years ago.

The current myth is that Terrorists are out to get you.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Antisyzygy]

There is, more likely than not, intelligent alien life out in the beyond-our-comprehension fucking massive universe. However, I seriously doubt they have visited Earth. More likely, UFO's are experimental aircraft from one of the world's governments, some anomaly such as ball-lightning, etc, or just a hoax.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Antisyzygy]

Methinks succubi always DID anal probes. Its part of the whole convincing you to commit the sin of sodomy thing.

Re:Carl Sagan

[blair1q]

And Fox News is news.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Anonymous Coward]

You know that Carl Sagan wasn't an actual person, right?

Re:Carl Sagan

[bill_mcgonigle]

Before UFO's there were demons, beasts, witches, etc. The current myth-of-the day is UFO's.

Ah, I see what you did there. Demons and witches are imaginary, so UFO's must be too. Sagan was a smart guy, but I don't see why his application of pop-psychology to the matter has any weight.

Here's a US Army Colonel who contradicts Sagan:

The evidence he speaks of includes the hard data of sensor technology that has frequently confirmed the reality of physical craft and the high quality of extremely reliable eyewitnesses who are "neither misreporting facts nor delusional."

Re:Carl Sagan

[rcamans]

Te current myth oof the day is the gov can do good...

Re:Carl Sagan

[Antisyzygy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild

Re:Carl Sagan

[syousef]

Everyone should read this book: A demon haunted world by Carl Sagan

Every era has had their share of unexplained phenomena. Before UFO's there were demons, beasts, witches, etc. The current myth-of-the day is UFO's.

(And I'm not saying they don't exist, just that there might be a simpler reason for all these sightings) :)

Agreed!!!! One of my favourite books of all time. Should be required reading early in highschool.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Antisyzygy]

Whoops..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_skull

Re:Carl Sagan

[syousef]

Methinks succubi always DID anal probes. Its part of the whole convincing you to commit the sin of sodomy thing.

Actually it's the incubus that is the male

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incubus

Re:Carl Sagan

[Evi1M4chine]

And I thought the current mystical beast would be "terrorists".
Or is it "radical atheistsâ already? (As Newt Gingrich put it.)

Re:Carl Sagan

[Antisyzygy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisting

Re:Carl Sagan

[Seumas]

Agreed. It is entirely reasonable to accept that there could be aliens. Though a stretch, I could even accept that they might know of our existence and even have been here at some point. What I can't tolerate are the idiots that try to convince the world of their existence and "research" them with a respect for the scientific process and logic that falls somewhere between the mix of paranormal investigators and pseudo-science Coast to Coast AM nutjobs. It's like idiots walking around with an EMF reader saying that there must be paranormal activity in your house, because of fluctuating EMF readings (what evidences has there ever been that one is directly related to the other, for example).

It's not the possibilities that offend me. It's the lack of logic and the embracing of the illogical, which does. They're not any different than nutjobs to employ "faith" as their form of reasoning in any named religion. Except, instead of pointing to a bible as their "evidence", they point to meaningless photos and videos and other unverifiable reports.

Re:Carl Sagan

[syousef]

Sagan was a smart guy, but I don't see why his application of pop-psychology to the matter has any weight.

Popular or not the pyschology is not only plausible, it's been demonstrated. Sagan doesn't just write pop psych nonsense - he gives plenty of very strong evidence of actual historical events including the Salem witch trials. Have you read the book? Or are you just talking smack?

Re:Carl Sagan

[jdpars]

Relevant, informational, but I regret it.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless, of course, the angels and demons seen in history actually were aliens.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Anonymous Coward]

(And I'm not saying they don't exist, just that there might be a simpler reason for all these sightings)

A simpler reason than "There might be aliens that come by now and then"?

Hell, that seems way simpler than something like "low flying planes reflect light on ice crystals in cumulo-cirrus-nimbus clouds in a pattern that shapes into a saucer" or "swamp gas interacts with chemical Z to fire up a bright flare every 2.6 seconds".

Re:Carl Sagan

[realityimpaired]

Right... because an alien race capable of surviving without blowing itself up, and then advancing their science to the point that they're capable of building ships that can travel the vast distances between stars or galaxies within the lifespan of an individual has nothing better to do with their spare time than practice fetishism on hicks who've spent one too many cold nights cuddling up to the cows.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Low Ranked Craig]

What has this to do with Daniel Tosh?

Re:Carl Sagan

[smacinn]

Just change of venue, They couldn't renew their leases in the Soddom/ Gomarrah head offices.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Tablizer]

Every era has had their share of unexplained phenomena. Before UFO's there were demons, beasts, witches, etc. The current myth-of-the day is UFO's.

I'm not sure it's good science to lump a phenomena into such broad categories based on vague similarities. Perhaps UFO are a variety of different activities such that even if most are hoaxes or mistaken identity, a few might be something genuinely new.

Most scientists used to dismiss the idea that "rocks fall from the sky" as merely folklore and drunk farmers.

You never know. Keep an open mind and don't be so ready to jump to conclusions. Even mistaken identity may teach us about human psychology and perception if patterns are analyzed.

Carl Sagan once said the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Instead, people should make extraordinary observations and record-keeping, and save the claims until later.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Anonymous Coward]

(And I'm not saying they don't exist, just that there might be a simpler reason for all these sightings) :)

Yeah, like they're unidentified.

Re:Carl Sagan

[BobNET]

Carl Sagan was my imaginary childhood friend. If anybody said, who knocked over the garbage? I'd say Carl Sagan. Who broke the window? Carl Sagan. Who wet the bed? Carl Sagan. (He had no control.)

Re:Carl Sagan

[bill_mcgonigle]

Popular or not the pyschology is not only plausible, it's been demonstrated.

Really, Sagan has proved the negative regarding UFO's?

Re:Carl Sagan

[repapetilto]

Isn't it possible that a space faring race would have such a huge population that there would be enough aliens at the tail end of the normal curve "spending cold nights cuddling up" to the humans? Maybe the alien society puts forth just enough effort towards prevention to prevent human mass acceptance of the probings?

Re:Carl Sagan

[repapetilto]

Have you ever looked at "hard" data?

Re:Carl Sagan

[errandum]

Lots of documentaries say that the big UFO surge was when The X-Files were on. That was 10 years ago +-, so yeah...

Re:Carl Sagan

[zippthorne]

UFOs were a lot bigger until about ten years ago.

Of course they were. It was a combination of poorly thought-out cosmic legislation and cheap space-gas...

Re:Carl Sagan

[errandum]

Just read it. You're extrapolating the whole thing from a single line...

The point you just mentioned is also covered.

Re:Carl Sagan

[errandum]

So you're saying that a deformed skull that has human DNA is proof of alien life? :)

Re:Carl Sagan

[c6gunner]

Honestly ... if you were an alien teenager with access to your daddy's space-sedan, wouldn't you get a kick out of smoking some dope and then screwing with a bunch of backwater primitives?

Re:Carl Sagan

[c6gunner]

The current myth is that Terrorists are out to get you.

So, wait a sec ... you're saying that the idea of terrorists who want to kill civilians is equally plausible as alien spacecraft kidnapping people?

Are you sure you're living on the same planet as the rest of us?

Re:Carl Sagan

[c6gunner]

Really, Sagan has proved the negative regarding UFO's?

Sagan has demonstrated a tendency amongst human beings to attribute unusual experiences to various shadowy and/or supernatural entities, which change over time, and for which there is never any actual evidence.

Do the words "burden of proof" mean anything to you? If you tell me that your car was stolen by a gang of roving leprechauns, and I point out that you live in a high-crime area where vehicle thefts occur by the dozen on a daily basis, I don't need to show that leprechauns didn't steal your car - you need to present some evidence that they did.

Re:Carl Sagan

[grcumb]

Te current myth oof the day is the gov can do good...

Exactly the opposite is true. You only need to spend some time in a place without effective government to realise that.

The (uniquely American) myth of the day is that there is no role for government in countless different areas that other societies have been fighting tooth and nail to get government to look at.

You want know what life is like when you government ceases to play a role in your life? Corruption is the first sign that things are going wrong. It becomes rampant because nobody's looking out for you, so you have to look out for yourself. People stop planning and start looking for the shortest distance between them and the next meal.

Then security starts to wane. Fewer police patrolling makes the streets less safe, so people -rightly- begin to trust one another less and less.

Then education goes into the shitter, because only the schools run by and for the wealthy are self-sustaining, and the others are staffed by teachers who have to take a second job to make ends meet, even if that means not showing up a day or two a week.

Then crime gets worse, because you get an entire generation of disaffected, unemployed, cynical and frustrated youth who stop giving a damn about you because you never gave a damn about them. They'll just as soon jack you up for your mobile as look at you.

And then it just goes spiraling down from there....

Think I'm making this up? Don't. I'm describing exactly what's happening in the developing country I'm living in. We at least have an excuse, because our government has extremely limited means. You folks in the developed world have no such luxury. So here's my advice: Stop bitching about whether government services are good, and start talking about how to make them better.

Re:Carl Sagan

[0xDEAD]

Excellent recommendation, one of the best books in my library. Carl Sagan is an amazing scientist, author and storyteller.

Re:Carl Sagan

[bill_mcgonigle]

Do the words "burden of proof" mean anything to you?

Not sure if you read the article I linked or not. I blockquoted the 'hard sensor data' and the testimony of reputable people excerpts on purpose.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Antisyzygy]

No. Im saying that there are nutjobs out there. Look at some of Lloyd Pye's videos on Youtube (the dude who made up the Starchild skull theory). He believes in yetis/bigfoot/sasquatch/abominable-snowman/crop-circles/ufos/alien-abductions/alien-origins/alien-conspiracy/etc. Worse yet, he actually has a theory that somehow connects crypto-zoology with ufology and throws in a big serving of paranormality. Its all based around the "Starchild Skull" and observations of a mad man. Though he has some reasonable arguments for exploring, as he calls it; "Non-premo" areas, for other hominid species, the rest of his stuff is batshit crazy. Watch his "lectures", and you will have a fun afternoon. Here is a start for you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gU9z6z9HIM

Re:Carl Sagan

[bill_mcgonigle]

Have you ever looked at "hard" data?

Nope, it would be great if we had access to this. Since we don't, the testimony of hundreds of reliable witnesses isn't a bad start. This level of proof would be sufficient in a court.

Re:Carl Sagan

[c6gunner]

Not sure if you read the article I linked or not. I blockquoted the 'hard sensor data' and the testimony of reputable people excerpts on purpose.

"reputable people" means shit in science. "hard sensor data" is very useful, but only if we can look at it. If your only evidence of "hard sensor data" is "this airforce guy says so", then you have no evidence. Read my other comment here for a better explanation of why.

Re:Carl Sagan

[bill_mcgonigle]

"reputable people" means shit in science.

That's a very narrow view. Science is a process, not only conclusions. Reputable testimony certainly isn't proof, but having proof and opening your mind to possibilities are two different things. The latter is necessary to allow the former to be examined. It's likely that private researchers will at some point in the future be able to afford such sensors. But why would they ever bother without proof, right?

"hard sensor data" is very useful, but only if we can look at it.

Agree, but I also trust physicists to interpret data that I can't get a copy of myself. I see that you've met plenty of dopes in the military. I've also met many very bright people so affiliated. Your anecdotes don't disprove their testimony any more than their testimony proves the existence.

Re:Carl Sagan

[c6gunner]

That's a very narrow view

No, it's reality. In science, reputation is largely irrelevant. Oh, sure, other scientists are more likely to listen to an expert in the field, but if he's making ridiculous claims without providing any evidence they'll call him on it and/or dismiss him. If Einstein had gone around claiming that the Earth was 6,000 years old, it wouldn't have mattered how groundbreaking his work in physics was - he would have been laughed out of town. That's the wonderful thing about science: it doesn't rely on authority. You can be a well respect expert on one small subject, and a laughing stock when it comes to everything else. Reputation is a shitty thing to base beliefs on; it's what we had before we came up with science.

Reputable testimony certainly isn't proof, but having proof and opening your mind to possibilities are two different things.

I'm all in favor of having an open mind; just make sure your brains don't fall out in the process. "Psychics" are constantly clamoring for "open mindedness", and creationists are always asking for "fairness" and "teaching the controversy". Those are all code-words for "we have no evidence whatsoever, but you have to take us seriously anyway". Sorry, but that's not how science works. Give us a reason to take you seriously, and we will; rely on shitty anecdotes and we'll just laugh at you.

Re:Carl Sagan

[tibit]

Well said.

Re:Carl Sagan

[tibit]

Last time courts had "consensus" to influence science, people were burned, stoned or banished. Your "level of proof" has been shown time and time again to be inadequate to uniformly administer basic justice, I hate to think how quickly all scientific progress would stall if juries were to judge academic papers...

Re:Carl Sagan

[sortius_nod]

Unfortunately by dismissing it as the "myth of the day" doesn't settle it.

The question is always did we think it up or did we create the myths to explain something we don't understand. Something coming from the sky that doesn't look like a human could be called a demon by primitive societies. We explain it away with science fiction ideas. Maybe there's a 3rd option we haven't thought of yet.

I squarely stand on the side of "I don't know" when it comes to ETs and the like. Not sure if they exist but not willing to dismiss the idea.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Anonymous Coward]

> opening your mind to possibilities

You need more than just the I-want-to-believe thing. Particularly when making a claim of something that is stupendously unlikely (given that all other evidence contradicts it).

By contradiction, I mean the logic in justifications for "UFOs everywhere!" are so full of holes that there's more hole than logic. That is: the physics and logistics involved in travel between stars doesn't match the behavior of UFO sightings attributed to aliens, or any of the other weird stuff attributed to aliens. They can only be made to match by extreme force of handwaving; the power source is magic (but doesn't explode in a crash), the tech is magic (but still crashes!), there is a complete code of secrecy that keeps a galaxy swarming with life from contacting us but it's constantly broken, but it's only broken to make lights in the sky and anal probe cows and never to actually try to communicate with the locals, and so on.

Re:Carl Sagan

[syousef]

Popular or not the pyschology is not only plausible, it's been demonstrated.

Really, Sagan has proved the negative regarding UFO's?

He has proven to a high that the evidence provided is BALLS.

Re:Carl Sagan

[fbartho]

Dammit, failing to prove a negative (impossible unless you're omniscient and can give that gift to others) does not on a practical level provide support for a highly improbable event.

I understand from a strict logical position it's not sufficient, but this is just tiring. Either, you're a trolling pedant, or you're ironically pointing out what all of these fringe ideas survive on, or you're some other flavor of boring.

Also I may be drunk.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Rantastic]

>

Here's a US Army Colonel who contradicts Sagan:

The evidence he speaks of includes the hard data of sensor technology that has frequently confirmed the reality of physical craft and the high quality of extremely reliable eyewitnesses who are "neither misreporting facts nor delusional."

You're kidding right? If I claim I have evidence of a mountain of gold hidden under Yankee Stadium, including all manner of sensor data, are you going to take me at my word? People make claims like this all the time. Guess what? The evidence never turns up, or if it does, it is found to be mistaken or fake. Every time.

Personally, I doubt we are alone in the universe. However, there has never been any validated evidence of any visitation to Earth. What Sagan points out is that we have very good answers to the question "How can otherwise reasonable people be utterly convinced that they have been taken aboard an alien craft when there is a lack of any evidence to show it actually happened?"

Re:Carl Sagan

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, I see what you did there. Demons and witches are imaginary, so UFO's must be too

You don't find it at all interesting that UFO sightings didn't start till after aliens had appeared in movies?

Re:Carl Sagan

[Tablizer]

Do the words "burden of proof" mean anything to you?

The wiser UFO buffs only claim the phenomenon is worthy of serious investigation, NOT that it is definitely aliens driving ships. The "extraordinary claims" saying of Sagan is ill focused, if not an outright fallacy.

Re:Carl Sagan

[hairyfeet]

Actually I figure if there are aliens it'll be more like a combination of Gorillas in the Mist and one of those African safari tours. Something like "And here with us today is Gee-tain, expert on the TeegeAck hairless monkeys, take it away Gee-tain"

Thanks GuFom, as we get closer you can see the hairless monkeys involved in one of their favorite activities, throwing shit at each other. While this looks amusing from this distance let me assure you the shit they throw is VERY dangerous, and in fact gets more dangerous not less as time goes on. You'd think they'd learn, but hey they're hairless monkeys right? /crowd laughs/ From my first expedition to the crazy planet they have gone from rocks and sticks to sharpened rocks ON sticks, to their current inclination to make primitive projectile weapons based on sticking explosives in tubes.

Now for those with weak third stomachs I suggest turning away as we are gonna swing by one of their warmer regions so we can show you those monkeys engaged in their typical mating rituals. Notice how the male approaches the female in one of their primitive vehicles and waves green paper to entice the female. We still haven't figure out what the females do with the green papers, we think they line their nests with them. Notice how the vehicle with the flashing lights comes every so often to beat on one of the monkeys and drag him away, we believe this is the way the tribe singles out the inferior males. Moving right along we'll next go to one of their areas where a great tribal battle is occurring so you can see the incredible effort the monkeys expend fighting over females and resources...

So if there are any out there I'm sure they look forward to sitting down and talking to a hairless ape like we would look forward to walking up to a Silver-back and poking it with a stick. Any race with the capability to pop all over the known universe would have about as much in common with us as we have to Cro Mags, and with the abundance of resources interstellar travel would bring would have no reason to interact or even visit for anything more than what the English call "shits and giggles".

BTW did they even bother to explain HOW they did it? Because just screaming FAKE is about as completely pointless as screaming COVER UP in cases like this. I read TFA and didn't find squat about how videos taken at so many different elevations and angles was faked. Were they all in it together? Was there a third party creating a light show for the others to film? What? How about giving us a little more than "Shooped!" please?

Re:Carl Sagan

[mwvdlee]

Witches did exist, the witchhunts in medieval times were just really succesful in eradicating every trace of them
UFO's exist too... until they're identified.
As for demons; where do you think CEO's come from?

Re:Carl Sagan

[Anonymous Coward]

Statistically, you're more likely to claim to have been anal probed by aliens than to claim to have been involved in a terrorist incident.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder why they shifted from being succubuses to doing anal probes.

They got bored with taking it and decided to give some back!

Re:Carl Sagan

[Mr2cents]

Here's Neil deGrasse Tyson's view on the matter, it's one of the best videos on logical thinking I've ever seen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k

Re:Carl Sagan

[DrXym]

Unless, of course, the angels and demons seen in history actually were aliens.

Yes they could be but in the absence of evidence it is not possible to reach that conclusion. And given that the mind plays tricks on people (e.g. pareidolia, hallucination etc.) especially people with underlying mental problems there are far more likely explanations.

Re:Carl Sagan

[DrXym]

No, it's reality. In science, reputation is largely irrelevant. Oh, sure, other scientists are more likely to listen to an expert in the field, but if he's making ridiculous claims without providing any evidence they'll call him on it and/or dismiss him.

Quite so. Even Nobel prize winners have managed to utterly ruin their reputation by pursuing some harebrained notions. For example Luc Montagnier (a nobel prize winning virologist) has become a laughing stock for self publishing some papers that detected electromagnetic resonances in homeopathic level dilutions of DNA.

Re:Carl Sagan

[michelcolman]

Hey, a Belgian traveler from the future, in a Slashdot thread about UFO's!

Re:Carl Sagan

[repapetilto]

Hard data is full of anomalies and unexplained deviations from what is expected. Figuring out why is a multi-trillion dollar endeavor that has been going on for centuries. Humanity is making progress towards increasing understanding and reducing suffering, but not due to public consensus. In fact, "common knowledge" and "common sense" are two of the greatest obstacles towards creation of a world free of ignorance. Definitely not the only obstacles though. Also, scientists/engineers/experts are people too... they don't always know what they are talking about and are often overconfident. This is why it is difficult to accept that aliens are amongst us no matter who says it. If my toilet doesn't flush, is that god punishing me or did the chain come loose? Anything is possible, understanding which possibilities are most likely is a useful skill. Then again so is understanding which possibility will get you the most attention.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Anonymous Coward]

I liked the idea put forward by Graham Hancock in his book: Supernatural. As per the GP post every era have had their stories and I've heard some interesting stuff from people that I don't consider crazy at all and without any agenda (that I could see at least).
 
His explanation is that we, as human beings, have been experimenting with altered states of consciousness for a long time (drugs[synthesised], mushrooms, smoking, weed, Ayahuasca and more interestingly DMT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine the active hallucinogen in Ayahuasca). Speculation is that this chemical is present and produced by mammals naturally. If correct then a certain number of the population could hallucinate any time that their brain produces more than it's fair share of DMT. This is about as close to a conspiracy theory as I'll get but to me this seems a nice clean solution to why people over the ages have all seen things and, using their own context at the time, explained them as - Aliens/Faeries/Demons/Minators/Centaurs/Cerberus/Anubis whatever else goes further back than the Egyptians.

Hancock goes on to some pretty wild speculation in the above mentioned book, which I then had to stop reading, but I took what I thought seemed reasonable from it:

1) Some members of a population group can accidentally hallucinate
2) Some tell, some don't
3) Interestingly people have reacted differently at different times, sometimes those that this happened to were considered powerful (Shamans etc) other times they were burned on stakes now they are just considered crazy.

Just my humble 2c worth

Re:Carl Sagan

[DNS-and-BIND]

Funny, I live in a developing country too, and the best thing they ever did was stop controlling their citizens' lives and let individuals flourish. You see, government used to be a part of citizens' everyday lives. You had to have a permit for this, a permit for that, the government would assign you a job on graduation, population was kept even by a system of assigning households, and so on. People are continually amazed by the stuff I do - "you mean you didn't ask permission first?" It simply never occurred to me that the government has a place in my life.

The new approach of "let people do what they want" is working quite well, too. Hospitals aren't scary and dirty any more. People can live in nice places instead of the "warren of hundreds of identical blocks of apartments" that are still around (and crumbling badly). I could think of another dozen examples, but you get the idea.

Re:Carl Sagan

[c6gunner]

The wiser UFO buffs only claim the phenomenon is worthy of serious investigation, NOT that it is definitely aliens driving ships.

Yeah, and the "wiser" 9/11 morons only claim that "we need a new investigation", not that George Bush blew up the WTC with super-nano-thermite so that the CIA could destroy paperwork, the military could steal 500 quintillion dollars in gold, and Larry Silverstein could collect an insurance policy.

Say what you will about the lunatics, at least they're honest about their beliefs. The ones you call "wiser" are still delusional; they've just covered themselves with a veneer or respectability. The thing is ... the more time that goes by without any serious evidence, the more ridiculous these "NEEDS MOAR INVESTUGASHON!" claims end up sounding. For instance, I don't think it really matters whether you claim that the earth is a flat disc, or whether you merely suggest that we "need more investigation into the shape of the earth" - if you're not convinced by the evidence so far, you're unlikely to ever be convinced.

The "extraordinary claims" saying of Sagan is ill focused, if not an outright fallacy.

No, it's an incredibly useful generalization which you use all the time, but it's inconvenient when it comes to your own pet-delusions, so you trash it instead of changing your mind.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Mr. Shotgun]

I wonder why they shifted from being succubuses to doing anal probes.

Couldn't afford the cover charge at the bars?

Re:Carl Sagan

[ppanon]

the testimony of hundreds of reliable witnesses isn't a bad start. This level of proof would be sufficient in a court.

Prior to the advent of DNA testing, courts had sentenced to death or life in prison people based on testimony of reliable eyewitnesses, only to have DNA testing later show that those people were innocent of those crimes. While those "reliable UFO witnesses" may be reliable witnesses under normal circumstances, they could very well all be subject to similar occasional brain dysfunctions that are expressed in these similar hallucinations. When taken in the context of a billion people on the Earth, a few hundred or even thousands of "reliable UFO witnesses" are effectively a minor statistical anomaly that are well within the spectrum of mental health issues in the population at large.

Re:Carl Sagan

[GooberToo]

Actually, UFOs have been pretty consistent throughout all of those eras. There are references to them in the bible even. They are depicted in Renaissance artwork and recorded by prominent historical figures. They are even on cave walls before recorded history. Basically, for as long as man has recorded events in some form or fashion, they have been depicted.

So to correct your statement, along side a steady stream of UFO depictions throughout history, demons, beasts, witches have also been noted.

The current myth-of-the day is UFO's.

There is absolutely nothing current about this mythos. In fact, its about the only truly consistent mythos known to man throughout the entire world. In fact, the only thing "current" about UFO mythology is people seem to ignorantly believe the mythos is the least bit modern.

Re:Carl Sagan

[gomiam]

Dear Troll: being able to add 2 and 2 doesn't automatically mean you know how to do differential calculus. And knowing about astronomy or astrophysics doesn't mean he knew a lot about medicine. And it seems myelodysplastic syndrome isn't something easy to manage, less cure, when you aren't young.

Re:Carl Sagan

[GooberToo]

The majority of the world population, by far, has seen a UFO. Contrary to popular ignorance, that doesn't mean its aliens.

On my soapbox-

I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, wish people would stop purposely conflating UFO to mean alien. The former is a fact, they absolutely do exist, while the later is extremely improbable. People who conflate the two sound like raving idiots. When these idiots then attack those who do believe in aliens, saying UFO to mean alien completely undermines their argument as they sound dumber than those who claimed they were probed the night before.

If you don't know the difference between a factual, real-world object, or even a visual phenomenon, and an alien, you have absolutely no credibility to provide anything topical to such a discussion about such matters.

So please people, get it through you tiny fucking heads - UFOs factually do exist. Factually, the majority of the world has seen a UFO. Period. That does not, in any way, mean people have seen unworldly vehicles or aliens.

Re:Carl Sagan

[mangu]

The wiser UFO buffs only claim the phenomenon is worthy of serious investigation, NOT that it is definitely aliens driving ships. The "extraordinary claims" saying of Sagan is ill focused, if not an outright fallacy.

In this case, the "extraordinary claim" is that there is anything unusual in UFOs, worthy of serious investigation. Serious investigation costs money, there are more urgent needs for that money.

I have seen two UFOs, which I quickly debunked by looking at them with binoculars. The first was a silvery flying thing, with a roundish shape. Using the binoculars I saw it was a toy helium balloon carried by the wind. The other UFO I saw was a bright light moving in random ways over a hill at sunset. With the binoculars I saw it was Venus, it seemed to be moving because there was a brush fire at the other side of the hill and the rising hot air caused refraction of the light.

There are gazillions of different ways that things may appear unusual to us on a day to day basis. To attribute any importance to such trivial sights is ridiculous.

Re:Carl Sagan

[GooberToo]

That's a very narrow view. Science is a process, not only conclusions. Reputable testimony certainly isn't proof, but having proof and opening your mind to possibilities are two different things. The latter is necessary to allow the former to be examined. It's likely that private researchers will at some point in the future be able to afford such sensors. But why would they ever bother without proof, right?

I wish more people would understand reality and deal with the truth of what you're saying here. I'm not taking sides in your exchange, but the simple fact is, your statement is extremely profound.

The established in the church of science (sure which scientology wasn't already taken) have been doing lots of harm to science by failing to understand and follow the scientific method. Its easy to look around and find lots of examples where these idiots, well known idiots in fact, are actively preventing the scientific process because it offends their ego. Cold fusion is just one such example.

Scientists didn't always embrace such idiocy. Ironically, even a hundred years ago and back, scientists openly engaged the public for ideas as much as education. These days, such openness is considered pompous or weak minded. The fact education, debate, and discussion is classified as such, a sign of sickness within the community.

Now, scientists believe only they have any idea what's worth researching and literally, science and especially funding, is distributed based on a judgement (frequently without any information on which to base such judgement - typically referred to as ignorance) call rather than the merits of available study. Worse, ignorance is frequently preventing even the most basic of study. In some cases, they go out of their way to destroy careers to prevent the most basic of exploration.

Yes, some good science still takes place. Yes, science hasn't completely broken down. But very clearly, many extremely prominent scientists absolutely are not following their most basic and fundamental principals. And its not just me saying so. Such voices are becoming louder and louder even from other scientists and physicists.

Re:Carl Sagan

[GooberToo]

"reputable people" means shit in science.

There's idealism and reality. Ideally, you're absolutely right. In reality, reputation is everything; frequently to the detriment of science itself.

Re:Carl Sagan

[GooberToo]

Yeah, and the "wiser" 9/11 morons only claim that "we need a new investigation",

What a trollish post. The simple fact is, 9/11 was already investigated. The problem is, for 9/11ers, no amount of investigation is enough unless they believe it sides with them. Factually, all evidence clearly indicates 9/11ers are full of shit. For 9/11, the majority of the require information was fairly easy to find, document, and analyze.

On the other hand, all credible UFO investigations consistently show more study is required. Its credible enough even the USAF has officers specifically designated to deal with such reports - as does most of the world's industrialized countries.

I'm sorry, but your argument makes you out to be an idiot because its not the least bit sound, reasonable, or supported by available facts.

Re:Carl Sagan

[robot_love]

I wonder why they shifted from being succubuses to doing anal probes.

When you put it like that, it seems obvious.

Re:Carl Sagan

[tehcyder]

If he's so smart how come he couldn't cure himself?

Everyone dies, hopefully sooner rather than later in your case.

Re:Carl Sagan

[tehcyder]

Relevant, informational, but I regret it.

What exactly were you expecting from an article titled "Fisting"? Pictures of the Easter bunny?

Re:Carl Sagan

[tehcyder]

what the English call "shits and giggles".

I'm English and always assumed this was an American expression.

Re:Carl Sagan

[tehcyder]

Statistically, you're more likely to claim to have been anal probed by aliens than to claim to have been involved in a terrorist incident.

No, I think you mean you're more likely to have claimed to have been anal probed by aliens than to have been involved in a terrorist incident.
There are quite a lot of alien abduction claims in the US, but they are just that - claims.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Yeah, and the "wiser" 9/11 morons only claim that "we need a new investigation", not that George Bush blew up the WTC with super-nano-thermite so that the CIA could destroy paperwork, the military could steal 500 quintillion dollars in gold, and Larry Silverstein could collect an insurance policy.

Okay, so you've decided that some questions aren't worth asking, fair enough. Where do you draw the line, though, since the asking of questions is absolutely vital to human growth? You only approve of questions within the boundaries of established science? How then is established science going to grow? Sometimes real discoveries are made entirely by accident, flying in from the wings, a phenomenon also known as serendipity. I don't know, in my opinion the more questions that are asked the better.

Re:Carl Sagan

[tehcyder]

Well said, and also, with the existence of the internet it would now be impossible for governments to keep actual evidence away from the public, which is where most UFOs-are-aliens arguments tend to go.

Re:Carl Sagan

[tehcyder]

In any system there will be some people who flourish, it's whether the levels of freedom and happiness of the majority are higher or lower that makes the difference between two systems.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Ozymandias_KoK]

Ah, the old "you merely saw the planet Venus" dodge. Whatever you say, Jesse.

Re:Carl Sagan

[blair1q]

No, the idea that terrorists want to kill you is equally as plausible as alien spacecraft visiting Earth.

Re:Carl Sagan

[blair1q]

That's why the authorities are changing the name of things we can't identify that are up in the sky.

Re:Carl Sagan

[airdweller]

"There are references to them in the bible even. They are depicted in Renaissance artwork and recorded by prominent historical figures. They are even on cave walls before recorded history. Basically, for as long as man has recorded events in some form or fashion, they have been depicted."
Care to provide any sources?

Re:Carl Sagan

[Jadeus]

It's Canadian, so you're both right. :-)

Re:Carl Sagan

[GooberToo]

Really? Do a simple search on "UFO+bible". There's a lot of crap to wade through but the results are massive (10.6 million results on Google).

The bible actually makes reference to lots of really, readlly odd things, including giants. In fact, giants are specifically mentioned multiple times in multiple places by multiple people.

Another interesting tidbit about the bible is that the people who created official cannon (meaning those who actually created the bible), in irony of ironies, consider Jesus himself to be an untrustworthy source. Jesus specifically quotes from the book of Enoch but when the bible is created, they consider the content far too bizarre (which it is) and remove most references. Unfortunately, there still remains several references to this book, one or two of which actually belong to Jesus. Furthermore, other texts actually have Jesus make many, many references to this book, saying it was commonly discussed between the disciples, thereby quoting directly from this book. So what we wind up with, is Jesus and others making reference to a seemingly fairly well known text of the time and "wise elders", at a much later date, deciding Jesus and others really didn't know what they were talking about.

Interestingly enough, later generations went to a fair effort to discredit the Book of Enoch (and others which didn't become cannon), by among other things, saying it was an all but unknown text. But contrary to this, many of the references to the book, including by Jesus, are in conversation with groups of laymen where the context of the references would only be understood if the book was well circulated. So its rather interesting how a seemingly well circulated book, seemingly understood and read by multitudes of laymen, is considered an unknown and poorly circulate text in some circles. Its a disparity I've never been able to resolve or understand.

As it pertains to your original question, the book of Enoch actually describes leaving earth, relativistic travel (assuming you're reading with a modern eye for what is described), so on and so on. Which brings us full circle, UFO references actually occur both directly and indirectly in both the bible and other books referenced by the bible and Jesus himself. Not to mention, many other scripts make references back to these books.

You'll find Wikipedia has a surprising number of articles on various directly and loosely related topics.

Literally, you can spend months reading about UFOs (and other oddities) in the bible; both directly and indirectly referenced. If you care to do some honest reading and research, you will likely be amazed just how many UFOs are documented from those days. Needless to say, once you start researching, what's frequently taught in church bares little resemblance of what once was widely believed and taught.

And in case you don't know, Enoch is said to be related to Methuselah and Noah. IIRC (been a while since I read), Enoch is the father of Methuselah and the great grandfather of Noah, but my memory may be failing me there.

Lastly, please note, I'm not advocating...I'm simply informing. I find the topic fairly interesting so it makes for some bizarre and obtuse rainy day reading.

I will warn you, if you're of the religious type, you may be completely shocked and/or disgusted with what you find.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Deefburger]

If you want to see a real one, watch carefully the Apollo 16 landing. There is a sphere that appears and immediately moves over the surface towards the Lander just a couple of seconds before the final pitch over and touchdown. You can see these in abundance as blue spheres in the USGS Clementine Natural color data at USGS map a planet. There is a derelict ship in the Apollo 14 Landing video that is white-washed out in www.google.com/moon. This too is visible on that same ridge at the same coordinates at USGS. Who needs a fake when the real ones are already visible?

Re:Carl Sagan

[bill_mcgonigle]

No, it's reality.

In that case, how would you go about getting funding for building a near-earth sensor network to test the hypothesis?

"Psychics" are constantly clamoring for "open mindedness",

Nobody is asking here for anything that can't be falsified.

Re:Carl Sagan

[bill_mcgonigle]

He has proven to a high that the evidence provided is BALLS.

He's been dead for 15 years.

Re:Carl Sagan

[GooberToo]

Worse yet, he actually has a theory that somehow connects crypto-zoology with ufology and throws in a big serving of paranormality.

I didn't see any paranormality in the account. In fact, he goes to great pains to explain why his theory is supported by established sciences. Regardless, the theory you are talking about is called the Ancient Astronaut Theory. The History or Discovery Channel has a documentary on it and dozens and dozens of books have been printed on this material to date. Documentaries dating back to the fifties and sixties on the topic can still be found. In fact, these theories are the entire basis for the Stargate movie, which spawned several scifi TV series.

Re:Carl Sagan

[bill_mcgonigle]

does not on a practical level provide support for a highly improbable event.

Well, this is the fundamental problem. Humans think they have everything figured out. That there's simply no way to engage in FTL travel, because our current level of knowledge of physics doesn't provide for easy mechanisms to do so (though it does allow for some hard ones).

I'm making the presumption that no real scientist thinks that humans are the only form of intelligence to ever evolve in all of the galaxies in all of the universe.

Re:Carl Sagan

[bill_mcgonigle]

Your "level of proof" has been shown time and time again to be inadequate to uniformly administer basic justice

Do you have a better idea?

Nobody is asking to impact anybody's life, liberty, or property here, just to examine a topic scientifically.

Re:Carl Sagan

[bill_mcgonigle]

If I claim I have evidence of a mountain of gold hidden under Yankee Stadium, including all manner of sensor data, are you going to take me at my word?

Nope, but I'll look at your evidence.

Re:Carl Sagan

[fbartho]

:D Good points.

Also, I'm not drunk yet. [today]

To the kegerator!

Re:Carl Sagan

[Antisyzygy]

The paranormality I speak of I suppose is the bigfoot part. He also talks about ancient scriptures, the planet tiamat and nibiru. Etc.

Re:Carl Sagan

[lennier]

you need to present some evidence that they did.

Oh, there's plenty of evidence. Too much, actually. Have you actually read the documented sighting reports for the original 1940s-50s wave of UFOs? It's a fascinating piece of history and has very little to do with the Steven Spielberg or Chris Carter media portrayal of UFOs as nuts-and-bolts saucers in the sky piloted by little grey men. Whatever UFOs were/are, they were witnessed by competent military observers - but they seem to inhabit a weird sort of grey zone between optical illusion and physical object. They appear, they're seen, sometimes they trigger radar, they don't do much, they go away, all in all they're pretty boring things. Little dots of light, mostly. The main thing we know is that they don't appear harmful (if you ignore the cases where multiple UFO sightings coincided with nuclear missile silo shutdowns/malfunctions). Bottom line is, we don't know what they are, but we know several things that they are not, and neither an invading extraterrestrial fleet nor an epidemic of synchronised mass hallucination seem to be really sensible explanations.

The UFO phenomenon is very interesting for this reason. But the personalities and politics which surround the field, ugh. Too much confusion, prejudice and conclusion-jumping by even the best writers (and I'd count Jacques Vallee - who by the way, was one of the people who really did 'invent the Internet' back in the day - among them. But even he gets way too paranoid.)

Re:Carl Sagan

[lennier]

I have seen two UFOs, which I quickly debunked by looking at them with binoculars.

If you were able to self-identify it, it wasn't unidentified.

Re:Carl Sagan

[lennier]

only to have DNA testing later show that hose people were innocent of those crimes>/quote>

Excuse me, but hasn't the opposite also been the case? That people were convicted based on 'DNA testing' which was alleged to have been 'scientific proof' and therefore less falsifiable than mere testimony - but that the convictions were then overturned?

I wouldn't bet the farm on an abstract claim of 'SCIENCE!' against a large amount of corroborating human testimony, is what I'm saying. 'SCIENCE!' has a habit of changing its absolute pronouncements every generation or so, while 'science' admits when it simply isn't 100% sure.

Re:Carl Sagan

[GooberToo]

The bigfoot claims turned by stomach too but its not paranormal. Specifically, that qualifiers as cryptozoology. That doesn't validate his theory, but his suggestion of bigfoot is far from the paranormal. Traditional paranormal is odd things such as ghosts and trolls under bridges, esp, so on and so on. Basically areas of study which are in no way supported by modern science. To suggest his theory qualifies as the paranormal, as hey painfully points out, is to suggest pandas, giant squid, giant octopi, and tends of thousands of other species don't exist.

But contrary to wikipedia's incorrectness on the subject matter, hardly surprising wikipedia is wrong, cryptozoology is a valid science and has led to discovery and many new animals and species, including Pandas and extremely rare fish (to which many documentaries have been made for channels like Discovery and Animal Planet). The idiotic spin on Wikipedia seems to ignore its real discoveries and seems to strictly focus on things like big foot and the lockness monster. So factually, contrary to the idiocy of the wikipedia article, cryptozoology is absolutely not a pseudo science. Using their criteria, almost all science is a pseudo science - which is dumb.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Antisyzygy]

He does make a compelling argument for searching for other hominid species in non-premo areas.

Re:Carl Sagan

[ppanon]

Excuse me, but hasn't the opposite also been the case? That people were convicted based on 'DNA testing' which was alleged to have been 'scientific proof' and therefore less falsifiable than mere testimony - but that the convictions were then overturned?

I believe that when that has happened, it was due to the DNA evidence being thrown out for various reasons: collected in an invalid manner (i.e. no search warrant), a break in the chain of evidence custody that meant it could have been contaminated, actual contamination due to human error in the lab, or poor procedure that meant that samples were mixed up and confused.

Now don't get me wrong, there has been some people stating that the limited number of gene markers being used in current forensic DNA testing is insufficient to guarantee a 1-1 match in a population the size of the USA, let alone the world, so false positives aren't ruled out. However barring human error, false negatives from DNA testing are. But that's not the point here. The point is that people who were convicted based on evidence from people and facts considered reliable enough that a guilt was "beyond a reasonable doubt" turned out to be innocent after all. So those reliable facts and witnesses weren't so reliable after all.

Re:Carl Sagan

[tibit]

For starters: ignore eyewitnesses. Hard evidence only: high resolution photographs, no SD quality crap, or 10th generation VCR, or -- worse yet -- stuff filmed from TV. There was a Discovery piece long time ago (5+ years) where they wasted half an episode on a guy who was showing something weird. Well, it was taped from the TV using a camera. The red "lights" they were wasting time on? Clearly rear lights of a car outside the window, reflected on the TV screen, aberration and all. It boggles the mind how gullible the "reporter" and the interviewee were: you'd typically associate that with advancedly-senior population... Those were "young" guys (40s). Of course it's but an anecdote, but so far every piece of "evidence" I've seen on line was silly like that. Mostly low resolution, many generations old copies where you could almost make anything look like it. Now I've read a while ago that there were suppsedly some U.S. military reports about UFOs. I don't know about U.S. military, but I spoke to an air force colonel in Europe who was similarly gullible. It was hard not to laugh.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Tablizer]

Venus doesn't exist. It's only a UFO mistaken for a planet.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Maritz]

Humans think they have everything figured out? Bit of a generalization there. Science is still going last time I checked.

Yes, there's every possibility of intelligent life in our galaxy and yes, it's possible that there is exotic physics available that allow some convenient means of spanning interstellar distances. But if there are alien spacecraft visiting our planet, there ought to be compelling evidence. Especially given all the cameras there are nowadays. Anecdotes are not compelling evidence regardless of who they come from. Anyone can be mistaken or fooled.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Maritz]

There are no "reliable" witnesses. Anyone who puts total faith in their own senses has questionable judgement. Everything you perceive comes through your brain. It makes simplifying assumptions with the data and this leads to incorrect perceptions. No amount of military training or expertise will change this. Anyone can be fooled, and that is why anecdotes are not compelling evidence. You'll never demonstrate the existence of phenomena with them, unless maybe you're talking about psychology which could then perhaps be studied through heterophenomenology or something. Not for a physical phenomenon like UFOs.

Re:Carl Sagan

[sound vision]

Possibly also plentiful LSD. (Lameness filter: LSD-25,

Re:Carl Sagan

[c6gunner]

Okay, so you've decided that some questions aren't worth asking, fair enough. Where do you draw the line, though, since the asking of questions is absolutely vital to human growth? You only approve of questions within the boundaries of established science?

No; I've decided that trying to refute the same shit over and over again until the end of time is wasteful and pointless. I've also decided that the burden of proof lays squarely with the people making the claim. Now, as a curious human being, if I hear a claim which I am not familiar with, I will gladly do some basic research into it, just to sate my own curiosity. However, if I find that it appears to violate the laws of physics, or is incredibly unlikely to be true, or is a new iteration of previously refuted garbage, or is made up whole-cloth without a shred of confirmatory evidence, I will dismiss it until such a time as new evidence becomes available. I certainly will NOT waste my own time or money on something which I have no reason to believe is true, nor will I support efforts to get the government to do the same. We have to have some selection criteria, otherwise we'd have to try and answer the "questions" of every fool, lunatic, and charlatan in the world - an impossible task which would leave us without the resources to do anything productive.

Sometimes real discoveries are made entirely by accident, flying in from the wings, a phenomenon also known as serendipity.

Sure, but what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

Re:Carl Sagan

[c6gunner]

In that case, how would you go about getting funding for building a near-earth sensor network to test the hypothesis?

This is akin to a theist saying "how do you propose we observe Heaven" as "proof" that their god exists.

That's not my problem. If you're foolish enough to think that aliens are traveling across lightyears of space in order to mutilate cattle and ass-rape rednecks, that's your problem. I have no intention of wasting time or money trying to figure out how to test your claims - you need to work out an experiment, gather some data, and present it for review. If it's convincing enough, you'll have no problem getting future funding; until then, your claims are indistinguishable from millions of other asinine ideas which have been put forward over the millenia.

Nobody is asking here for anything that can't be falsified.

Yes, they are. When the vast majority of UFO sightings have turned out to have prosaic, natural explanations, only a fool would stand there and continue to insist that the remaining "unexplained" incidents are actually little green men in flying saucers. It's no different than any other pseudo-science or religion; the beliefs of the people making the claims cannot be changed because they do not rely on evidence - they rely on faith. As such, they are by definition unfalsifiable.

The best example of this is the crop-circles; the people who came up with the idea have come forward and admitted it was a hoax. They've shown us how it's done. They've even been commissioned by corporations and governments to create advertisements using the same method. Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence, there's no shortage of idiots who continue to claim that some crop-circles are actually signs of a UFO landing. How is that not "asking for anything that can't be falsified"?

Re:Carl Sagan

[c6gunner]

If you were able to self-identify it, it wasn't unidentified.

But if he had picked up the phone instead of his binoculars, it would have been.

Re:Carl Sagan

[GooberToo]

My initial reaction is I agree with that. I think some have started to make an effort here, but I have no idea about their level of funding, the types of equipment in use, or the credibility of said organizations and/or individuals. Though ignoring that, if what he said was true, that 25% (or whatever the number was) of the non-premo land has never been foot surveyed, that alone makes we wonder what else is out there; and that's completely ignoring hominid or homo anything.

- and back on my soap box -

One of the biggest problems with cryptozoology in general, is much like what you find in physics forums, there are a lot of crackpots which cling to it to support the wildest of harebrained fantasy. Its one of the hypocritical reasons many scientists believe cryptozoology is a pseudo-science. I say, hypocritically, because using that bar, physics is also a pseudo-science. And the only thing which makes me not want to completely dismiss this guy is he tries hard to put forward a credible, if strained, presentation within the bounds of plausibility. Of course, plausibility doesn't make it true. Of course, over the last several hundred years, there has been long parade of people mocked as he who were proved correct.

But hell, science knows full well a lot of established edicts of science are full of shit - despite meeting extremely strong resistance from the entrenched scientists. For example, we know its extremely unlikely dinosaurs were the plan gray/green animals as constantly presented. Its factually, far more likely to reflect the color variance spectrum of birds. We know some of the armored dinosaurs were in fact, not armored; unless massive blood loss from minor injury is the purpose of armor. Rather than armor, its understood these served strictly a mating ritual and attraction role; as is common in the bird kingdom. We know T-rexes were scavengers (like, say, a hyena) rather than hunters. We know they too were family creators, likely stayed in family-unit packs (at least to some exist), and did have a concept of coherent family. And that's just the tip of the ice berg. Likewise, there are literally tens of thousands of objects in storerooms which violate established timeline throughout most of the fossil record, and despite them being fairly consistent in their dating, they are completely ignored because it violates established models. And when questioned about this, scientists acknowledge this and simply state they will always be ignored until a new theory can not only account for these massive aberrations, but successfully displace existing theories which are known to have massive holes; all the while taught of gospel. Which brings us full circle - he is absolutely right in that there is a lot of fraud and active misrepresentation in scientific circles, contrary to popular notions of noble science.

That in a nutshell, is likely one of the reasons I'm willing to at least entertain the notion he may at least be in the ballpark.

Re:Carl Sagan

[bill_mcgonigle]

This is akin to a theist saying "how do you propose we observe Heaven" as "proof" that their god exists.

It's interesting that you mention religion. We can have George C. Marshall (US WWII General and Nobel Peace Prize winner) write a letter to the President about recovering an extraterrestrial craft, we can have several Presidents of the United States talk about extraterrestrial life (even seeing craft themselves), we can have the Belgian army release F-16 sensor data about craft that appear on independent radars and perform far beyond the capabilities of human craft, and yet, since these all disagree with the so-called 'skeptical' view, these people are all denounced as mentally unstable. This sounds more like an orthodoxy railing against heretics than anything that resembles science.

That's not my problem. If you're foolish enough to think that aliens are traveling across lightyears of space in order to mutilate cattle and ass-rape rednecks, that's your problem.

I don't think I ever mentioned this. You're making a composition error.

Nobody is asking here for anything that can't be falsified.

Yes, they are. When the vast majority of UFO sightings have turned out to have prosaic, natural explanations, only a fool would stand there and continue to insist that the remaining "unexplained" incidents are actually little green men in flying saucers. It's no different than any other pseudo-science or religion; the beliefs of the people making the claims cannot be changed because they do not rely on evidence - they rely on faith. As such, they are by definition unfalsifiable.

Either you misunderstand or misrepresent on purpose. I was talking about building a sensor network to rival NORAD or the like. If such a system is built, and there are no echos, the hypothesis is falsified. No mention of 'little green men' was ever made - again, you falsely conflate.

The best example of this is the crop-circles; the people who came up with the idea have come forward and admitted it was a hoax. They've shown us how it's done. They've even been commissioned by corporations and governments to create advertisements using the same method. Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence, there's no shortage of idiots who continue to claim that some crop-circles are actually signs of a UFO landing. How is that not "asking for anything that can't be falsified"?

And a third time. You quote my comment but appear to be having an argument with somebody else. Try harder.

Re:Carl Sagan

[bill_mcgonigle]

For starters: ignore eyewitnesses. Hard evidence only: high resolution photographs, no SD quality crap

So, any video evidence prior to c. 2000 is to be dismissed? Even if it's raw data from a pair of F-16 viewscreens? It's hard to make an argument if data is continuously dismissed. There are good algorithms now to detect tampering.

And ignore all eyewitnesses? Presidents of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize winners, and Army Generals?

Re:Carl Sagan

[bill_mcgonigle]

But if there are alien spacecraft visiting our planet, there ought to be compelling evidence.

Is it within the realm of possibility that some governments may be concealing available evidence? The memos from George C. Marshall to Roosevelt are quite interesting, at least.

In contrast, the sensor data from the two Belgian F-16's was made quite public.

Re:Carl Sagan

[bill_mcgonigle]

Anyone can be fooled, and that is why anecdotes are not compelling evidence.

That's true, but if hundreds of people are simultaneously fooled about the same things? If reliable people like George Marshall write a top secret memo to the President that he recovered an extraterrestrial craft, is it reasonable to assume that he was deluded?

Even still, there is non-human data available, such as the sensor data from those Belgian F-16's.

Re:Carl Sagan

[c6gunner]

We can have ... blah blah blah

Appeal to authority fallacy.

I don't think I ever mentioned this

I don't care what you mentioned - you're talking out of your ass, and I have no problem lumping you in with the rest of the lunatics. You don't get to use the ol' "I'm less crazy because I don't believe ALL of this stuff" escape clause. I've explained that your claims are being dismissed because you're relying entirely on anecdotes and appeals to authority, yet in your latest post you once again whip out anecdotes and appeals to authority. You are either too stupid to understand what I am saying to you, or you're intentionally ignoring it. Either way, I have no intention of humoring you any longer. If you have evidence of extraterrestrial visitation, then let's see it. Put up, or shut up. LGM or GTFO.

Re:Carl Sagan

[Tablizer]

There are indeed some suspicious activities surrounding nine-elevn, but I suspect they are covering up upper-mid-level management incompetence rather than a plot.

But the whole issue boils down to how we spend our science/investigation resources. It's as much an economic question as it is a science question.
 

Re:Carl Sagan

[bill_mcgonigle]

Yes, I understand what you're saying - that you need to have hard results to entertain beginning the study. This isn't how science works.

My original argument was that it's worth investigating. I point out your logic errors and you get all flustered. You say that I'm making claims, when I've done no such thing, I've pointed out anomalies that pique my curiosity.

Well, that's not entirely true, I did make a claim - that the Beligan Army released hard sensor data from two separate F-16's that tracked craft that are faster and more maneuverable than anything humans know how to build, and this was almost 25 years ago. But I mentioned that already and you had no response. Too inconvenient a data set? Is this what launched you into the ad hominens? I realize that cognitive dissonance is a hard thing to overcome.

Was it a secret US government project that we can't know about? Perhaps - that certainly makes it even harder to draw conclusions. If you know that the Belgian F-16 data has already been explained away by pedestrian causes, please post, I couldn't find anything like that. But 22-ish years later, there are no signs of secret projects that have come to light that would explain the data.

I realize that it's a hard subject to approach; we have declassified government files saying that there are extraterrestrial craft that have crashed and that the government is covering them up. Are those just an elaborate con by the government? Could be, I guess - all I've claimed is that it's worth examining, and that is how science works - small bits of anomalous data are noticed, hypothesis are proposed, and the problem is researched until a conclusion can be drawn that fits and predicts the data. In that order.

Re:Carl Sagan

[c6gunner]

I know I probably shouldn't waste my time, but I'll give you one more chance to be rational.

My original argument was that it's worth investigating

Then fucking go and investigate it! I disagree with your conclusion. I know that we've already wasted way too much time and effort on this bullshit. If you think it's worth investigating, then you can go and waste all the time and money you want on it! Come back when you have REAL RESULTS and maybe we'll have something to talk about; until then I don't give a shit what you think. The bigfoot morons, the loch-ness fans, the homeopaths and acupuncturists, the conspiracy theorists, various cults and religions ... all of you try to pull the exact same bullshit, and all of you fail miserably. I don't want to hear what ANY of you assholes think until you have some evidence for me to look at. And when I say evidence, I mean evidence; I don't give a flying fuck if you cousins third roommate from college knew a guy in the airforce who brought coffee to a colonel who once saw a UFO - I want DATA.

Well, that's not entirely true, I did make a claim - that the Beligan Army released hard sensor data from two separate F-16's that tracked craft that are faster and more maneuverable than anything humans know how to build, and this was almost 25 years ago. But I mentioned that already and you had no response. Too inconvenient a data set?

I ignored it because it's just as laughable as the rest of your claims. The Belgian Army did no such thing. The Belgian Air Force released a report, but it didn't contain any "sensor data". You're either intentionally lying, or you're a shitty researcher. But, please, if I'm wrong, go ahead and direct me to this "sensor data". It sure would be nice to have something real to look at for a change, instead of dealing with the lies and obfuscations of UFO fanatics.

I realize that it's a hard subject to approach

No, it's not - it's a very easy subject to approach. Since nobody has provided any data, we can dismiss the whole thing out of hand. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence; it doesn't matter whether we're talking about god, big-foot, santa claus, or your little green men.

And that covers all that needs to be said. If you can point me to Belgian F-16 sensor data, we can continue the discussion. Otherwise just accept the fact that rational people think you're an idiot, and go away.

Re:Carl Sagan

[tibit]

Yes, even raw data from a pair of F-16 viewscreens. The quality is so bad that you can't really make any reasonable inferences from it in the case you likely refer to, apart from saying "sorry, not enough".

As for appealing to authority: since when presidents, peace prize winners and generals are experts at evidence analysis? This is but an example of constant idolization of people of position who speak far outside their area of expertise. This is one of the reasons why the vaccine fiasco is still around: celebrities who don't know shit keep parroting lies. And, ahem, the celebrities you refer to were not likely eyewitnesses: they didn't see the UFOs first hand. They only saw the evidence.

Re:Carl Sagan

[airdweller]

Did you find any UFO references in the US Constitution yet?
PS. Your life must be so interesting :)

Re:Carl Sagan

[GooberToo]

PS. Your life must be so interesting :)

Says the person who is ignorant of what's around them and clearly is such a loser, with no life, they only have trolling in hopes to hide their own sad existence from themselves.

Sorry, but underscoring my learned status, at the expense of your own, is oh so such a truly sad form of trolling. The fact this didn't occur to you until you posted means you actually do have my pity.

Even worse is that you statements seem to imply you believe everything you read, else there exists no reason to make such accusations of me. Again, the fact you are so stupid and gullible means you have my pity. Seriously.

Re:Carl Sagan

[bill_mcgonigle]

Yes, even raw data from a pair of F-16 viewscreens. The quality is so bad that you can't really make any reasonable inferences from it

What do you mean? If you don't know how to read an F-16 viewscreen? Why do you think the quality is bad?

And, ahem, the celebrities you refer to were not likely eyewitnesses: they didn't see the UFOs first hand. They only saw the evidence.

Not at all. Ronald Reagan spoke of his airplane being shadowed by a non-airplane craft for 40 minutes from Sacramento to Los Angeles (while he was governor). He says he and the entirety of the passengers watched it the whole time from the airplane windows.

George C. Marshall (General, then Sec. State, developer of the Marshall Plan, Nobel Peace Prize winner) was tasked (before the war) with leading the recovery of a crashed vehicle in California. He wrote a top-secret memo to FDR (since de-classified) that the craft was not of any known earthly technology and presumably of interplanetary origin. FDR charged the Taskforce he created with exploiting and sharing the technology after the War was over.

This isn't a case of "these people are famous so I'll believe their interpretation of data." It's "these people have a very high level of credibility, and nothing to gain, and perhaps much to lose by their testimony." Although, I suppose that has more bearing on Reagan than Marshall, as Marshall's memo was classified so he had little personal risk. Yes, it's possible he made the whole thing up. And it's possible the released memos are part of an elaborate rouse on the part of the US government. But, to what end?

Re:Carl Sagan

[airdweller]

Wow... Seriously...

The day that we get proper footage...

[Anonymous Coward]

The day that clear, non-shakey footage of a UFO lands on the internet is a day that I look forward to. I love the idea of aliens, but this was one of the worst hoaxes I've seen.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[errandum]

The day that happens you'll have everyone saying "it's really good CGI!!!"

I'll rephrase that. The day I see a UFO, that's a day I look forward too. Other than that or a mass invasion, I can't see it happening...

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[Anonymous Coward]

The day that clear, non-shakey footage of a UFO lands on the internet is a day that I look forward to. I love the idea of aliens, but this was one of the worst hoaxes I've seen.

Psh it'll be dismissed as cgi so fast you won't even hear the woosh!

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[Technician]

I agree. The city is full of security cameras, full of air defense, and not one of the non tourists with a video camera saw and recorded anything. Unfortunately I have not seen any security camera video of the area showing nothing happened at the same time. I was expecting one to surface, but that too has been absent.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[INeededALogin]

Unfortunately I have not seen any security camera video of the area showing nothing happened at the same time. I was expecting one to surface, but that too has been absent.

The day we start responding to obvious hoaxes is the day the terrorists win. Seriously, why should the govt waste our money on proving that the video someone took is fake. I'm all for the search for life, but chasing down youtube videos in search of it is a huge waste of time.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[robbak]

The problem is that if any of us saw a UFO, we would instantly recognise it as Venus. Or Jupiter, the moon,a transcontinental jet, group of fire balloons. .....
       

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[Quiet_Desperation]

That right there is the best evidence against.

We've seen a geometric explosion of people carrying camera equipped gadgets all day every day, and still we get points of light against a black background.

So many of the anecdotal accounts describe up close encounters, huge ships hovering 50 feet off the ground or drifting slowly about in no particular hurry to hide or escape detection, all sorts of details visible. Where the phonecam shots of those? Huh? Huh? Huh? Yeah, I thought so.

And, hey, although a hard core skeptic, I would *LOVE* a real photo of an alien ship. The world could do with the punch in the crotch of that magnitude.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[Enderandrew]

They exist, but sadly haven't given us any more answers. For example, the 2004 Mexico incident. The Mexican government says they were UFOs. CNN had live video as it was happening. You can find the video on YouTube.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3707057.stm

Or the Phoenix Lights. I've seen tons of video of the lights themselves, which remain unexplained. I've also seen video during the Phoenix Lights when a large mass covers the sky and blankets out the stars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights

In both cases, you had government agencies openly confirmed the incident as unexplainable phenomena, and both incidents were well documented. But what can you say other than that you don't have any explanation?

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[blair1q]

It will immediately be rejected as being unrealistic. Who sets up a camera, sets it to a stable angle, and gets a nicely-framed shot of an unexpected phenomenon? Even people who think a UFO hoax will work have enough foresight to realize that they have to make the footage look accidental.

There's also the implication that if the camera is moving that fast it's impossible to composite the UFO into it; thus it must be really in the space it appears to occupy.

Frankly, faking things on film has gotten damn near perfect. Footage won't suffice, even if it's of a real E.T. spacecraft or Bigfoot. It's going to take real-time interaction, with people we trust to be skeptical doing the play-by-play with their own eyes on the object.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[dave420]

The Mexico incident has been thoroughly debunked. They are the flames of oil platforms, being picked up by an IR camera. No mystery there.

As for the Phoenix lights, the second wave have been explained (flares), and the lack of an verifiable explanation for the first wave doesn't mean they were exotic aircraft/spaceships/time-travelling reptilians. Fuck, migratory birds flying in formation cause massive illuminated Vs gliding silently across towns and cities all the time. The human propensity to see structure where there is none quickly extrapolates points of light into solid structures is well-documented, and has not been ruled out at all.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[Seumas]

Well, the mexican government confirms a "UFO" (something unidentified; not something alien). So it must be legitimate! After all, everything the government asserts is real. Like that van-bomber around xmas in Portland. That . . . you know . . . didn't have a bomb. And was egged on by the government to drive a van full of sawdust to Pioneer Courthouse Square.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[Enderandrew]

I watched the video of the Mexico event as it happened. The lights appeared to stay in a formation and moved through the sky. They also disappeared and reappeared. Oil platforms are stationary. If I recall off hand, the pilots witnessed the balls in the sky for about 30 minutes.

Is that what you call thoroughly debunking?

It was also definitively debunked as ball lightning, except for the fact that ball lightning is a proposed and undocumented phenomenon itself. And no theory on ball lightning would have it hanging around for 30 minutes.

Randomly throwing out theories that don't make the least bit of sense don't count as thoroughly debunking.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[Enderandrew]

I'm not saying aliens are real.

I'm saying that it is a common trope to suggest there are never any photos or videos of UFOs. In reality there are tons of documented cases that remain unidentified and unexplained. But since they are unexplained, it is easy to just overlook them and move on.

I pointed to two examples off the top of my head that I recall following in the news as they happened. Both are well documented and vouched for by government employees. UFOs are not a hobby of mine. I frankly don't care that much about them, but I do see them pop-up in the news from time to time, only to be ignored the next day.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[Anonymous Coward]

As for the Phoenix lights, the second wave have been explained (flares)

Thank you! The very first time I saw the "Phoenix lights", I knew exactly what they were. Many others recognized them as well as I've seen this debunked several times. If you've ever seen military flares, you see how they flicker on and flicker out, EXACTLY as the Phoenix lights. When they are dropped by aircraft, they flicker on in the direction that the aircraft is flying, EXACTLY like the Phoenix lights.

Knowing that the lights have been debunked and that they are still shows as credible evidence of UFO's absolutely ruins any UFO show I see that shows them as true UFO sighting. Makes me wonder if all the clips they show have been debunked and they simply aren't telling me about it. It completely strips all credibility.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[Enderandrew]

As for the Phoenix lights, if I recall they were large enough to be visible by the whole city, with the same reports coming in from neighboring cities, and even other states.

And since when do birds glow brightly at night?

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[dave420]

You should have read the link I posted - it explains everything. Live feeds on CNN don't change a thing. The lights didn't move, the camera moved. The lights were very close to the horizon, which is why they looked the way they did. It has been debunked - whether you want to keep on playing Mulder is up to you, just don't pretend you're taking the objective high ground.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[dave420]

When they are light-coloured, and illuminated against the dark sky by the light pollution coming from the town/city they fly over. It's not unheard of.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[mikes.song]

As for the Phoenix lights, the second wave have been explained (flares), and the lack of an verifiable explanation for the first wave doesn't mean they were exotic aircraft/spaceships/time-travelling reptilians. Fuck, migratory birds flying in formation cause massive illuminated Vs gliding silently across towns and cities all the time. The human propensity to see structure where there is none quickly extrapolates points of light into solid structures is well-documented, and has not been ruled out at all.

I have no doubt that the additional Phoenix Lights events were flares, and likely hoaxes. In fact, I believe they were productions to cast doubt on the first events. But, suggesting that the first event could be birds is absurd. That does not match the video, many thousand of creditable eyewitness accounts, and coverup. To suggest that migratory birds are not ruled out as an explanation of the Phenoix Lights is to admit ignorance on the topic.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[Anonymous Coward]

The original video of this seemed real at first. I never looked at it too much. But, the additional videos are clear hoaxes or parodies of the original.

A great way to spread doubt on event is to make hoaxes of the event and trash them.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[Omestes]

So wait... (some of) the Phoenix Lights are unidentified, flying, and perhaps objects? Someone should come up with an acronym for that, perhaps U.F.O.?

Being a UFO doesn't make something automatically little green men flying around.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[mug funky]

UFO hoaxes are all shaky because motion tracking is difficult and therefore doing it successfully is more likely to look "authentic"

if i had a locked-off high def camera sitting out in a field for countless hours, i'd be happy to catch some UFOs with it, but both scenarios are quite unlikely.

look at the amateur footage of the 9/11 attacks, or the zapruder film. or the hindenburg film.

hell, even the footage of the A-bomb attacks on japan are pretty damn blurry and shaky.

people would scoff at the fact that the camera was locked off, even if it was 100% real footage.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[Omestes]

So wait... (some of) the Phoenix Lights are unidentified, flying, and perhaps objects? Someone should come up with an acronym for that, perhaps U.F.O.?

Being a UFO doesn't make something automatically little green men flying around.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[dave420]

Both of which have been debunked. Awesome work.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[dave420]

Read my post again. I merely stated that even though there is no currently-provided mundane explanation (which is generous), they aren't automatically anything weird.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[Omestes]

Read my post again. I merely stated that even though there is no currently-provided mundane explanation (which is generous), they aren't automatically anything weird.

But the Phoenix Lights are weird. Generally very rare, unexplained occurrences are called "weird". Weird, again, doesn't mean little green men from outer space. We shouldn't play down the novelty just to try to make the UFO crowd shut up.

I firmly doubt that aliens are visiting the earth, but I'm sick of the knee jerk reactions by "skeptics". I put that in quotes since skeptic doesn't mean "defender of things that we believe are true at this moment". A real skeptic wouldn't instantly bash anyone claiming anything outside of his world-view. While I doubt the premise of little green men, I'm open to credible, objective, and reviewed evidence that proves me wrong. And while a UFO sighting will probably never prove the existence of aliens, it could open up further interesting research. I'm guessing that there are tons of phenomena that are currently unexplained by our current state of knowledge. Quickly dismissing them isn't doing anyone a favor.

I don't want to come on like a defender of the "paranormal" or UFOology (pronounced "you-fool-ogy"), or ghosts, or other flavors of woo. But there comes a point where just yelling "CARL SAGAN" at people who claim things outside of your belief system gets a bit annoying. Its a bit like the bad type of Christians, who yell "the Bible says" at every dissenting opinion. I love Carl Sagan as much as the next science nerd, but his name isn't an excuse to completely dismiss things. Hell, he loved SETI, and I think our odds of finding life via SETI is about as good it via UFO encounters over Nebraska (read; not very good at all). I still love and support SETI though, not because I think its really going to do much, but because its just neat.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[Anonymous Coward]

"only to be ignored the next day."

because everybody already knows the endgame:

something made a light/shape float where it wasn't expected, but it's not aliens/angels/etc - it was a [hoax, optical illusion, reflection, weather event, man-made].

That's it. ALL the explanations are mundane to most of the world, and to the news agencies. If I saw any ongoing news on UFO reports, I'd change the channel.

Do you watch NOAA's "Santa Tracker" every Christmas? Are you disappointed if they ignore it the next day too?

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[Maritz]

But there comes a point where just yelling "CARL SAGAN" at people who claim things outside of your belief system gets a bit annoying. Its a bit like the bad type of Christians, who yell "the Bible says" at every dissenting opinion. I love Carl Sagan as much as the next science nerd, but his name isn't an excuse to completely dismiss things. Hell, he loved SETI, and I think our odds of finding life via SETI is about as good it via UFO encounters over Nebraska (read; not very good at all). I still love and support SETI though, not because I think its really going to do much, but because its just neat.

Whose 'belief system'? Far as I know most skeptics would love a confirmed ET-UFO and the lack of belief in them doesn't stem from a 'system', it stems from there being no good evidence. How quickly can a claim be dismissed? The reason, I think, people are mentioning Sagan is because of the 'extraordinary evidence' maxim, which is very relevant to UFOs. ET visiting Earth is an extraordinary claim. Hence it needs appropriately good evidence. The lack of patience you might see from skeptics is really just a natural reaction to the fact that the videos are still crappy and yet lots of people still find them incredibly convincing.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[Maritz]

Something can remain unexplained simply due to a lack of information one way or the other. Doesn't really mean much in and of itself. They pop up in the news and then disappear because they're deeply unconvincing except to the extremely credulous.

Re:The day that we get proper footage...

[Maritz]

There's always (so far) something fairly obviously wrong with the hoaxes. A genuine video presumably wouldn't come from an anonymous source like most hoaxes do; and the original footage should be available for analysis. It's likely that a genuine recorded event would have more than one set of pictures/video available, from different angles. Mightn't get things to the point of scientific certainty but you can bet that a hell of a lot of serious minded people would take it very seriously indeed.

The huge increase in the number of cameras available on the planet is a meta-experiment in a way, if there were ET spacecraft we ought to be getting more evidence and better evidence over time as the properties of the cameras improve. Doesn't seem to be happening.

Bummer

[Voulnet]

Awww....

Respected?

[No Lucifer]

"one of the oldest, largest, and most respected UFO investigation organizations in the world"

World's tallest midget, and all that.

Re:Respected?

[Anonymous Coward]

If "The Onion" is "America's Finest News Source" then MUFON gets to call itself the most respected UFO investigation organization. Hell they're more respected than Fox News..... Bad example.

Re:Respected?

[gringofrijolero]

Hell they're more respected than Fox News...

Well they're not afraid to print the truth! They're second only to Al Jazeera.. or the New Yorker.. I always get those two mixed up

Re:Respected?

[uncanny]

Well, it just says MOST respected, so sure, they are a bunch of losers, but they are the cream of the loser crop!

Re:Respected?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

The Onion is Americas Finest News Source. Well it is at least the most accurate.

Slashdot

[OverlordQ]

Where non-news confirmed to be non-news is news.

Re:Slashdot

[l0ungeb0y]

The confirmation of a suspected hoax is news, unless of course are you all in favor of keeping the debunking secret in order to propagate the hoax.

Re:Slashdot

[OverlordQ]

It was already debunked, this is just a debunking of the bunk of the debunking of the hoax.

Re:Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

And probably stolen from a three day old Reddit posting.

Re:Slashdot

[Quiet_Desperation]

Ah, that's bunk. No, wait... er...

Re:Slashdot

[syousef]

Where non-news confirmed to be non-news is news.

The news is: This UFO hoax is so lame even UFO nutters rejected it!

Re:Slashdot

[artor3]

The people who ever believed it was anything but a hoax aren't likely to believe the debunking.

Re:Slashdot

[grcumb]

Where non-news confirmed to be non-news is news.

Not that I don't believe you, but I'm a gonna wait for confirmation, first....

Re:Slashdot

[Nemyst]

!!news = news

Re:Slashdot

[lymond01]

No! This only proves they've infiltrated the highest levels of Muffin. Or Muffon. MUFON. Whatever.

You'll rue the day!

Re:Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Where non-news confirmed to be non-news is news.

Wow ... I did a double take on this ... had to re-read that!!!
For a split second I read it as "Where non-jews confirmed..."

Almost fell off the chair laughing! :)

Re:Slashdot

[Isaac Remuant]

dude, it's april's fools!

It wasn't really a hoax, you silly!

Typical

[geekoid]

'UFO'* video appears.
Some people offer rational explanation.
People who believe it's a UFO say nu-uh.
Rational people put forth rational explanation
People who believe it's a UFO say nu-uh.
People accept it's a hoax.
At no point the people who believe in UFOs think that maybe if the last 100 sighting were incorrect, then may the idea we are being visited is wrong.

*for the sake of this post UFO means alien visitation.

Re:Typical

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh.. I think you forgot to read even the headline. Lots of people that believe in UFOs didn't say "nu-uh." Instead they investigated, found that it was likely a hoax, and moved on to more interesting cases. There are some good investigators and some very good cases out there. The problem is whenever the investigators put together the cases (that were often assembled along with scientists,) most "rational people" just respond, "nu-uh."

Re:Typical

[Antisyzygy]

To be fair, my father served in the Airforce underneath a Colonel who was friendly with him. This Colonel said specifically he had knowledge of certain things like missile guidance systems, stealth, etc. that were taken from alien technology. Apparently this tech was taken from various accidents (not Roswell BTW). But then again, as a math grad student, I know logic enough to admit its a friend-of-a-friend type of thing. The funny thing is, my dad is a realist and does not fall for crap. Hes the first to admit that it may be bullshit. I think the Colonel probably was having some fun with his subordinates.

Re:Typical

[rcamans]

Why would intelligent life visit earth? There's no intelligent life here for them to visit...

Re:Typical

[c6gunner]

To be fair, my father served in the Airforce underneath a Colonel who was friendly with him. This Colonel said specifically he had knowledge of certain things like missile guidance systems, stealth, etc. that were taken from alien technology.

As someone who served in the military for an extended period of time, one of the biggest disappointments for me was realizing that many officers are either retarded or fucking nuts. I know an airforce pilot who's convinced that there is alien architecture on Mars. I know a Military Intelligence officer who is convinced that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Most recently, I had an army Captain tell me that garlic cures cancer.

I think part of growing up is realizing that people - even highly placed people with all sorts of qualifications - are generally full of shit. Most of the time it's simple ignorance rather than malicious lies, but it doesn't change the fact that authority figures are generally just as fallible as anyone else. THE most important thing I've learned in life is to evaluate every claim based on the evidence presented for it, rather than the credentials of the person who is vouching for it. Without that, we may as well be back in Galilean times, where reality is determined by church officials regardless of what data those uppity "scientists" present.

Re:Typical

[Antisyzygy]

Like I said later in the part you did not quote, Im pretty sure the Colonel was full of shit. More likely it was that he had no other explanation for the high tech missile guidance systems of his time. "I don't understand it, so it must be alien" type of thing.

Re:Typical

[c6gunner]

I understand; I wasn't arguing with you - merely adding some support to what you'd already stated. Although, personally, I think it's more likely that he was simply making it up whole-cloth, rather than relaying information about something he didn't understand. Either that or his beliefs in UFO's were already so extreme that he was grasping at every straw he could find in order to try and justify them. I've seen some amazing things in my time with the military, but any time I didn't understand something there were plenty of people working with that technology who were more than happy to explain it to me. Only someone who is already unbalanced could look at military tech and conclude that it must have been made by aliens.

Re:Typical

[Anonymous Coward]

I caught a bit of a UFO show sometime recently (in the last few months, maybe?). I usually flip right by them, but this one caught my attention, because it was a back and forth where they'd show a claim about aliens, and then follow it up with epic debunking logical beatdown.

The part I caught was the "reverse engineering alien tech from crash sites" part. The key thing here? Given the dates, at no time did we have microscopes (real ones or even theorized ones) that could even SEE the feature size of even the stuff we ourselves figured out how to make a few decades later. But there's no way aliens were doing stunts in the 50s with computers worse than what we have today - and our computers today aren't good enough to match what the claimed aliens are supposed to be able to do. Similar arguments apply to chemistry and materials science; back then, we couldn't have even begun to analyze the stuff we have today, let alone reproduce it.

From another angle, there haven't been any isolated breakthroughs anywhere that'd be the smoking gun of reverse engineered tech - or even focused secret research on stuff that we merely knew was possible. Our R&D paper trail all fits together exactly the way it would through natural work, and that includes all the military stuff. And this is consistent with every other country in the world, too; no one is making any crazy leaps.

Re:Typical

[Warma]

Parent is still not modded up to 5, so people with the capability should correct this.

Re:Typical

[alexo]

one of the biggest disappointments for me was realizing that many officers are [...] fucking nuts.

True, karydophilia is quite rampant in the military.

Re:Typical

[mugnyte]

Most military tech is made by non-military sources. Some of whom read this site.

MUFON is a well-known disinformation campaign

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

It's where the CIA boys put their effort after Project Blue Book.

UFO's are not interplanetary extraterrestrials.

They are supernatural manifestations associated with the metaphysical obsessions of the power-elite.

Re:MUFON is a well-known disinformation campaign

[dave420]

I hope that was a joke. I really, really do.

Re:MUFON is a well-known disinformation campaign

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Start here. Read it and look around. read some more, start to finish.

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2006/05/red-white-and-gray-part-two_30.html

Barbara Bush is the illegitimate daughter Aleister Crowley.

He drew a "Grey", before they were documented phenomena.

Re:MUFON is a well-known disinformation campaign

[mugnyte]

Lay off the weed kid, your slip is showing.

Here is the newzzzzz...

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be a slow day

What a shock!

[Anonymous Coward]

No not really.

Why do they get the "final say"? Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should we wait until a UFO organisation decides what the videos were? It was obvious they were hoaxes, and furthermore video evidence made it apparent that the videos doubled the edges around the frames to allow for the edition of the shaky cam effect. Who cares that some "ufologists" continued to defend it? They defend just about any UFO claim, no matter how ridiculous or how thoroughly debunked.

MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

A lot of shady dealings and ongoings go about in MUFON's affairs in local level. This has been the discussion of ufology circles in usa numerous times. MUFON has ceased being a reliable organization since a long while.

i dont know where did the article pull that 'reliable' wordage from.

Actually it goes without discussing that cia/nsa any other agency has started to infiltrate mufon looong looong ago as a policy - way too dangerous to be let loose.

If you argue otherwise, i would like to remind you the black ops divide and conquer operation cia mounted to effect wikileaks breakaway :

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/02/10/1243211/Secret-Plan-To-Kill-Wikileaks-With-FUD-Leaked

things like these are commonplace in intelligence world since last 150 years.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[hondo77]

Did you actually just use the word ufology with a straight face?

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[_Sprocket_]

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to find someone sticking Wikileaks and UFOs together without a hint of irony or humor.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[dave420]

You're hilarious. Seriously. "Ufology" is a fucking joke. There has been absolutely no solid evidence for anything UFO-based, just conjecture backed by wishful thinking and a fanciful take on critical thinking. You provide a great example by posting a link about alleged CIA plan to destroy Wikileaks. That has nothing to do with MUFON. Nothing. Not one iota. Just because something somewhat similar has happened before does not mean claims it has happened again somehow have more credibility. That is not how critical thinking works. "Put up or shut up". The ball is solidly in the "Ufologists" court, as it always has been without exception. "Ufologists" are a dangerous mix of the ignorant, the paranoid, and the insane. The single common thread is a complete lack of willingness to accept reality for what it is, instead replacing demonstrable fact with whatever fantasy they want to believe, and treating them as of equal veracity. Hint: The X-Files was not a documentary.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[maxume]

The fun thing is that the Air Force really did have a program to keep track of unidentified flying objects (they wanted to know about it if anyone got a good look at a secret plane).

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

yes i did. and the problem with that is ?

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

yees. there has been absolutely 'no solid evidence' for anything ufo-based. and those who came up with anything related to ufos, used to disappear in united states of a.

maybe that was why there has been absolutely 'no solid evidence' for anything ufo based ?

and, despite the fact that 5 major countries of the world has had released ufo files, with a lot of unexplained, official cases, the only one who still did not do so, and discouraging any talk related to ufos, is still united states of america ?

let me tell you one thing - you go and explain all the unexplained cases in the official secret service ufo files britain, france, russia had released, and then come talk to me about fucking 'absolutely' evidence.

your stupid sarcasm about 'x files' and whatnot, are misplaced in the wake of this.

no - explain ALL the unexplained cases in minimum of these 3 countries' released files, and i will shut up. and no - i wont accept random whats-his-name from random private think thank in united states of a calling absurd things 'balloons' as explanation either.

yes. i am talking about ufos, with a straight face. because, i cannot be a moron to the extent of cockily discounting unexplained observations without leaving a fucking armchair in a random university office and doing field study and observations first.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

project bluebook is just the public relations face of the issue. there has been other things, yet unclassified to this date. cia even mounted remote viewing experiments - total paranormal phenomenon. yet, it wasnt known until someone broke the news out.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Attila Dimedici]

MUFON has ceased being a reliable organization since a long while.

You mean, when they were founded?

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[dave420]

Yup. I know about that. That does not, for one second, mean that any "craft" so highly exotic ever existed, or has ever been recorded. They were entirely concerned with the integrity of their airspace, and not with aliens or other such bullshit.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

you are marked as a right wing extremist/troll in my book. then, tell me - should i or should i not waste any time replying to you ? your choice.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it was embarrassing and wasteful, not because it's some super secret that they needed to keep from the populace lest they rise up and whatever.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[dave420]

The remote-viewing attempts yielded absolutely no useful results. So far *nothing* paranormal has ever been substantiated in any way, shape, or form.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[dave420]

Thanks for proving my point. It's not up to the sceptics to demonstrate how the case files are not actual real UFOs, it's up to the believers to show how they are. So far that has not happened. Not even once. You are attempting to explain the unexplained without evidence. That's childish beyond belief. Carl Sagan's ghost would throttle you in your sleep for such specious reasoning. Your "logic" that because no one has said anything means that something is going unsaid is ridiculous. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you even know what "critical thinking" is? Apparently not. Shame.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

the important point is, something like remote viewing was undertaken. im not even talking about LSD being a product of cia.

the point is - intelligence agencies do FAR more than things that are at the level of suppressing any talk/evidence of anything they do not like to be known.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

it doesnt matter how you feel about it or what you or public thinks about it. main point, is below - im requoting from another reply :

the important point is, something like remote viewing was undertaken. im not even talking about LSD being a product of cia.

the point is - intelligence agencies do FAR more than things that are at the level of suppressing any talk/evidence of anything they do not like to be known.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[dave420]

"At the level of"? What does that mean? Oh, right - nothing. You are guessing. Let me translate: "Agencies to weird things, so therefore they are capable of doing anything I can think of, and even more than that, because I don't differentiate between guesswork and reality, that means they are doing it". Awesome. The remote-viewing debacle was grasping at straws - they thought if it could work, it was worth the effort to try to get it to work. As it is, they failed massively, and not a single reported incidence of remote viewing working has ever occurred, which is strange, as there is untold wealth and fame for anyone who can demonstrate such abilities. You seem to be under the impression the US government is perfectly infallible, making no errors and capable of incredible feats in their on-going, entirely-successful campaign of information dominance. Which if was true, you (and all the folks who talk of such nonsense) would be dead by now. But you're not. So you're full of shit.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I don't know, that it's fucking ridiculous perhaps? You sound like a stoner who just picked up the X-Files box set. "Oh MUFON can't be trusted, they've been infiltrated by the CIA!" Yeah, because they were so fucking reliable in the first place. The best argument you can come up with to support your irrational belief is "look at what they tried to do to Wikileaks" and you expect to be taken seriously? Take your fucking medication and shut the fuck up. Or don't and assume that I'm just another "agent" working to discredit the fine, respectable field of "ufology" like the crazy, superstitious fucktard that you are.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[clang_jangle]

People are not right-wingers because they don't believe in UFOs (or the Easter Bunny, etc). The poster who told you earlier that the burden of proof is on the "ufologists" has it right. Being skeptical is the *reasonable* position; your position appears to be extremely unrealistic. Please don't live your life according to silly beliefs, instead work to find more solid truth based on real facts and work from there. Belief-driven people are a big problem on this planet, you know...

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[dave420]

It's a bullshit term, used to describe a wide-range of lunatic, misguided, or ignorant folks, with no agreed-upon meaning, who have so far managed to demonstrate absolutely nothing useful at all. If you don't realise that word is a joke, you're in too deep to be helped.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

Thanks for proving my point. It's not up to the sceptics to demonstrate how the case files are not actual real UFOs, it's up to the believers to show how they are.

we are not in a courtroom. this is not how science works and mankind gains new knowledge :

if there is an unexplained phenomenon, interested researchers bring explanations and hypothesis for that phenomenon. when someone brings proof, the hypothesis moves forward.

unexplained phenomenon means, unexplained phenomenon. that means, the skeptics did not provide anything to disprove the existence of that phenomenon in an acceptable manner either.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

you have got the initial point well, however you are unable to get past that point in regard to cognitive abilities. moreover, you ended your argument coarsely and rudely. let me do the same :

we will discuss about this if you ever straighten up your attitude in regard to the people you are debating against.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

come back again when you learned to talk properly. see, i am a 'fucktard' who believes in such 'shit', and you, are, apparently, someone who purports 'empirical objective science' against that, yet, you end up being the witless piece of shit who broke into ranging from crazy to fucking to fucktard in wordage.

why so serious ?

why that angst, if you are following empirical objective science ?

let me break it down to your thick mind :

There is unexplained phenomenon. this means, THERE IS UNEXPLAINED PHENOMENON.

period. and audieu.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya know, Chris Carter's 'The X-Files' was a really great show, I loved it and am still a big fan...but Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos' was even better, because it was educational and not simply entertainment.

Incidentally, a guy I knew was a UFO fanatic. He would tell anyone with a pulse that "aliens are here and they're hostile!!!!1111", and he used to invite me 'round to his apartment to watch various loonie-tunes "UFO documentaries".

One day he played a video recording he'd made of a show aired the previous night. It was one of those 'point-counterpoint'-type efforts, where "believers" were pitted against skeptics, which included the late Sagan.

The funny thing was that whenever a believer finished telling their breathless tale, there would be a jump and suddenly...there was another believer and another breathless tale!

The guy had edited out all of the skeptics, claiming that they were "full of shit" and not worth his or anyone else's time.

Unbeknown to my acquaintance, I'd actually caught the show the night before, and had seen the skeptics utterly demolish the believers - totally steamroller them - so it didn't surprise me that he didn't want me or others to see it now.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

http://www.google.com.tr/search?q=mexica+mass+ufo+sighting&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

oh definitely people are not right wingers because they dont believe in ufos - i know atilla dimedici from quite a number of different discussions in other subjects - he is a right wing extremist.

and no, burden of proof is not on the ufologists - this is not a courtroom. this is not a witch hunt. this is a scientific endeavor to explain unexplained phenomenon. so far, what skeptics has been doing is explaining the non-hoax, government-ufo-file released phenomenon as 'weather balloon', or swamp gas, or someone's fart.

again, this is not courtroom. this is science - discovering, explaining and learning things that were not explained before.

all of what you said about 'my silly beliefs' and doing work to get solid truth on real facts, can be applied to all the 'ufo debunkings' that were done by academics or 'experts' who had had spoken to debunk everything without their ass leaving a college office seat. it would be acceptable if the explanations went further than 'swamp gas', 'weather balloon' and 'mass halucination' though.

http://www.google.com.tr/search?q=mexica+mass+ufo+sighting&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

over and over and over and over, people of mexico city, in the tens of thousands, 'mass hallucinate'.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

shoo.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[dave420]

Again, thanks for proving my point. Science does not work by simply accepting baseless conjecture as anything other than baseless conjecture. You wish to elevate your pet hypotheses to the level of substantiated fact, with no rationale. As I said, it's not up to the sceptics to prove anything, as until the believers prove anything, there is nothing to disprove. Science is scepticism.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[dave420]

Aah. The ol' "get out of a losing argument free" card. I used coarse language, so you stop arguing. You have no argument. It's fallacious from its inception. You are guilty of employing the same thought processes employed by conspiracy theorists the world over - tailor the evidence to fit your explanation, instead of the rational approach of tailoring your explanation to fit the evidence. You are playing X-Files. Saying otherwise doesn't magically fix your irrational approach to understanding.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

shoo shoo.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Anonymous Coward]

We know intelligence agencies do things other than just suppressing speech. And?

There was some vaguely scientific notion that remote viewing might have merit. The CIA decided to give it a go. It didn't pan out, and in retrospect seems hilarious. They didn't own up to it lest they be embarrassed and the public and politicians decide they were wasting money.

This is all extremely human of them. So again, what's your point in bringing this up?

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

shoo x 3

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[net28573]

the tone of this forum and how easily people start throwing terms around to justify that they are correct shows how truly fucked we are as a species. To assume that your government controllable everything that happens within it is the equivalent of assuming a businesses owner can catch everyone who steals office supplies which they rarely do. Using the military rationale, if it can be done it will be done and so if people might panicked and riot over news that they have been lied to for more than 40 years they will so we should request a nonexistent sector of the government to handle this. Can anyone say "unacknowledged special access projects "? If something is repeatedly said a great enough number of times by a high level official anything can be believed. People can just as easily threaten people's families in order to get them to shut up. true or not the repercussions are too great if it is true. lookup the disclosure project for references. . If after hearing all those witnesses You still show no interest in any further investigation then I hold no interest in anything you have to say.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an embarrassing twat.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[dave420]

There you go again. You can't say anything, so you just stop talking. How old are you? 5?

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably think Stalin was a Reaganite, so of course you'd say just about anyone is a right wing extremist.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

shooo ....

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

please keep on hypothesizing about what i would think about random irrelevant other concepts and things, while you have started.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

lets cut to the chase :

http://www.google.com.tr/search?q=mexica+mass+ufo+sighting&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

if the below is, despite occurring repeatedly, explained by 'mass hallucination', if you combine this not being talked at all in usa in mainstream, with the point i made above, you can get my point about cia, and suppression of information.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

so this is the explanation for what's in the link then... its quite scientific, enlightening, and horizon-widening. did i mention scientific ?

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[dave420]

You really don't understand rational thought. And not only that, your hubris is compelling you to tell everyone just how confused by it you are. Wonderful work! You're the poster-child for irrational conspiracy theorists.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[zippthorne]

There can't be such a thing as ufology, since you can't actually study ufos: As soon as you have even so little as just enough information to group what you saw into any kind of categories, you've identified the objects, so they're no longer UFOs!

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[dave420]

5-years-old it is. No wonder the field of "ufology" is so laughed at if 1% of it is comprised of people with your lackadaisical attitude towards actually understanding anything.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, what does this have to do with the CIA's remote viewing experiments?

Are you trying to tell me that the CIA is remotely influencing people's minds or something? If you are, not only are you completely making shit up, but you're also lying. The mexican UFO hysteria was on CNN. It was on Coast to Coast AM, which by listenership is "mainstream".

So no, I don't "get" your point.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

cia is one of the u.s. government arms, suppressing any kind of talk undesirable to the perceived goals of the u.s. govt. this includes, talk about ufos.

what you call 'mexican ufo hysteria' being on cnn, is a brief stint that didnt even last for a week, despite these had been happening for decades, repeatedly, numerously and tens of thousands of people beholding them.

giving something a few days' coverage, whereas it was going on for decades ...

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

shoo . .

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Omestes]

im not even talking about LSD being a product of cia.

Good thing, since it isn't.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Anonymous Coward]

How is any of this linked in any way whatsoever? I know the CIA is a government institution. So what? What does that have to do with their remote viewing program? What are you trying to say? You keep jumping around between topics and don't actually seem to be getting anywhere with any of it.

As far as I can gather: you're saying that the CIA is covering up the Mexican UFO hysteria, based on the "evidence" that they've also covered up other things in the past. And that's about all I can gather. Is that what you're saying?

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[ColdWetDog]

Gesundheit.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Kell Bengal]

Methinks he is referring to MKULTRA, which while fascinating, is completely unrelated to the topic under consideration.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Kell Bengal]

Maybe this is all "whoosh" to me, but what exactly is "shoo" supposed to mean here?

Shiney Heavenly Object Organisation?
Shifty Helium-filled Orb Observatory?
Shy Heliopause-Originating Occupants?

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Anonymous Coward]

You admit there is unexplained phenomenon, yet you always insist on assigning the explanation of "space aliens" to all this unexplained phenomenon. Or you insist that unexplained phenomenon is unexplainable. Wrong on both counts.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Anonymous Coward]

As an expert unicornologist and stantaclausologist in training, I find hondo77's comment offensive.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems funny but this kind of shit can consume people's lives. My father was a field investigator for MUFON in the 1980's (a title one could actually hold, at least back then) and he ultimately published a book detailing the ongoing UFO activities on a Native American reservation in the Pacific Northwest. He spent countless days, weekends in Yakima interviewing people. Residents. Fire lookout rangers. Anyone he could get his hands on who was willing to talk. Surprisingly, a lot of people had something to say. Stories of lights in the sky, strange sounds, alien trespassers in back yards, strange ghostly figures in business suits standing on roadways. More and more my father spent time away from us, writing his book. I figured this must be normal. Eventually, my mother divorced my father as amicably as was possible. They came to me and my brother and attempted to apologize for it. We said there was no need to apologize, as the marriage had seemed to be over for years before that anyway.

My dad is a critical thinking person. His day job was technical writing, which as far as I know, he was incredibly competent at. His book, while written on a strange and paranormal topic, was actually very well researched, and he refrained from drawing any clearly crazy or unbelievable conclusions. But I still cannot understand how this obsession was able to take hold of him to the degree that it did, to the point of breaking apart our family.

I am posting this anonymously, because the book is quite identifiable with the correct Google search. I just don't want anyone tying my real life identity to my Slashdot user name.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, no offense, but by bothering to reply to him, you've made yourself look like an ass...

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to be a skeptic about UFOs and laugh about them, ufologists, etc.

Until I saw one with two friends, camping in a remote zone in my country in South America.

I'm an engineer, strong math, physics background.

What I saw was REALLY strange.

That most ufologists are nuts make UFOs not less real.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Anonymous Coward]

Aw, see what you did there? Now we will have to scrape his brains from the sealing. Annoying sticky stuff I tell you!

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[PwnzerDragoon]

It means he's five years old and incapable of debating like an adult. He's probably sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "I can't hear you, la la la lala!" as well.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[PwnzerDragoon]

Careful, don't make him mad or he might shoo you.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Anonymous Coward]

Being unable to explain a phenomenon does not make you scientist, it just means you don't know what it is.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[UtsuMaster]

no - explain ALL the unexplained cases in minimum of these 3 countries' released files, and i will shut up.

I humbly ask to whoever is doing this to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity while they are at it.
Preferably using my ghosts and faeries theory for spooky action at a distance. Pretty please?

Until then its just common sense: turtles all the way down.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Sean_Inconsequential]

Yes, actually, the burden of proof in the scientific process is on the person making the claim. The scientific process is, by its very nature, a skeptical one - it isn't "I want to believe" it is "I am willing to believe." They may seem, initially, to be similar statements, but there are undertones to each that are dramatically different. When you say "I want to believe" you are starting out from an initial position of belief in a claim regardless of supporting or refuting evidence; conversely, "I am willing to believe" should imply that certain conditions must be met in order for the claim to have merit. So to make a scientific claim one must also provide evidence that supports the claim, show how the evidence supports the claim AND show how the evidence DOESN'T support an alternative claim. Science doesn't conclusively prove things to be true, it proves things to be conclusively false. When you start from a position of "I want to believe" you start at the conclusion and work your evidence to support your claim. In fact, your open mindedness is inversely proportional to your want for believing. If you start from a conclusion and work your way backwards to a claim you must be willing to reject any evidence to the contrary of your conclusion. You have already implicitly stated that you are unwilling to accept explanations that refute your claim.

So, yes, the burden of proof is, in fact, on you as the claimant, but not only must you provide evidence to support your claim and demonstrate how that evidence supports your claim, you must also demonstrate how that evidence isn't the cause of some other phenomena.

And if you would like to maintain your courtroom analogy, then we can do this scientifically, anecdotal evidence carries little to no weight in the scientific process. Your stories will not pass muster, nor will unreliable source material. And I am sorry, but without those you do not do not have much of a case. Maybe you should have carried this out in a courtroom.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[ScentCone]

You are confusing somebody's unexplained experience with being evidence of aliens buzzing the planet. The complete lack of any actual evidence is the problem, here. People discount the UFO nuts because the UFO nuts haven't yet come up with a single scrap of credible evidence, but do continue to put forth all sorts of plainly obvious hoaxes in order to keep silly people paying attention to them.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Anonymous Coward]

>>let me tell you one thing - you go and explain all the unexplained cases in the official secret service ufo files britain, france, >>.russia had released, and then come talk to me about fucking 'absolutely' evidence. \

Maybe you could provide a reference to said "secret" files?

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy Mother of LOL.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Cytotoxic]

A quick read about the null hypothesis will help you dealing with these "science" trolls. The null hypothesis is the basis of scientific inquiry. Read up and you can formulate a null hypothesis for evaluating UFO phenomena as examples of extraterrestrial visitors. That should make everything clear to these "science" trolls - you can speak their language then and properly defend ufology. Devise a correct null hypothesis and then you'll be able to articulate how the evidence supports alien presence in a way that these trolls can't refute. That's how science really works....

Be careful though... there are those who don't fully get what the null hypothesis means and try to apply the language without understanding it.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[mugnyte]

Shady dealings at MUFON?! Like endlessly cataloging poor quality videos of frisbees, hubcaps and now cheap CG? Have they merged with the Society Of Tree Faeries and Wood Gnomes yet? Seems like they have similar databases and could possibly share a server.

"has been the discussion of ufology circles" and yet "goes without discussing"
"If you argue otherwise, i would like to.. [present a logical fallacious argument]"

You, sir, have no sense of irony.

The entertainment level in the UFO world is outstanding as it is tiresome.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[mugnyte]

So don't explain it with other-world theories, since you cannot test this theory. You can, however, test ideas like social belief systems, hoax creation, and personal bias. A hoax means that evidence isn't. Without any evidence, one can generate a theory of anything-not-explained-yet based on Woodland Pixies just as easily, and endlessly discuss the possibilities, but it's not science, that's for sure.

God/Aliens/etc only lives in the cracks that science has not explained (yet). This has been slowly shrinking for hundreds of years.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah! So you're saying "UFO studies" break down into the real sciences of weather, sociology, psychology, belief, communication and now, computer graphics?

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

hoax creation existing doesnt mean everything is a hoax. there is no difference in between explaining some unknown phenomenon with 'otherworldy' explanation or dubbing all of them as hoaxes, like a witless idiot.

and about 'otherworldly' phenomenon - ufo possibility is not otherworldly - we are doing the very same thing to people amongst us in our half assed civilization :

- numerous tribes around the world are being held in isolation by u.n. decision, 'to preserve their genuine lifestyle and prevent the harms of modern society'. only occasionally some medicine is leaked to these tribes. scientists observe these tribes remotely.

- we are already using cloaking technologies - leaving aside the cloaking vest japanese had had debuted, british army displayed a method to cloak a tank, and held a demonstration in which they made half of a tank vanish from plain sight.

so, we are already playing god, and holding various peoples in isolation because of our ethical judgment even on this planet, hiding ourselves. moreover, if it comes to that, as you can see from point 2, even more advanced means to hide ourselves and do things exist.

a concept that is already in practice on this very planet - there is NOTHING barring from more advanced civilizations from doing the very same thing to us. the fact that we were not able to observe or break the 4th wall yet, does not make it an impossibility.

and what am i discussing anyway. we are at the point of discussing the time component of quantum mechanics experiments and possibility of time machines. it is beyond moronic to assume that even though we came to this state in a mere 200 years of scientific revolution, there could have been no other civilization which broke through that and a lot of fields of breakthrough long before.

open minds. that is what science requires. not monastic scholastic 12th century behavior.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

are you calling numerous events in which tens of thousands and more people, including news channels, have observed, filmed ufo, 'mexican hysteria' ?

where does that moronic 'hysteria' appendage come from, in that phrase ? we are talking about tens of thousands of people here. if, such a consistent mass 'hysteria' had been possible, it would have been repeating in more than one place on the face of this planet, and history.

of course - if you dub all these kind of sightings as 'hysteria' throughout history, it would be easy to call everything hysteria. but then it would just show how utterly rabid the moron doing that identification is - definitely, not scientist material. scribe maybe.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[evilviper]

you've identified the objects, so they're no longer UFOs!

That's really not a problem. There are many seemingly-oxymoronic terms, which are perfectly valid. In most cases it's simply that convex is being ignored. Jumbo shrimp isn't an oxymoron as shrimp is used as a noun. Ufo has also become a noun in it's own right, even though it was not originally formed as a noun...

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Anonymous Coward]

MUFON lost its credibility around the time when the first X-Com came out.

Nobody would want to admit to wearing purple-green outfits...

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Maritz]

and no, burden of proof is not on the ufologists - this is not a courtroom. this is not a witch hunt. this is a scientific endeavor to explain unexplained phenomenon. so far, what skeptics has been doing is explaining the non-hoax, government-ufo-file released phenomenon as 'weather balloon', or swamp gas, or someone's fart.

What kind of explanations are you willing to accept? The fact that you'll automatically exclude mundane possibilities indicates that you've already made up your mind. In would seem that in your case, believing is seeing.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

for an explanation to be mundane in that regard, multiples of 10,000 people everywhere around the world should be frequently experiencing such mundane incidents now and throughout history.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[Maritz]

I don't really know if I follow. I'm sure tens of thousands of people experience mundane events every day, sure. It seems you find the unexplained residue compelling, but in many instances it's not possible to give an explanation because there just isn't enough information. I'd really like it if alien spacecraft were visiting this planet, but to accept something like this you need compelling evidence. Some unexplained sightings doesn't do it for me.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

the fact here is, there being unexplained phenomenon. and, explanations like 'swamp gas' 'weather balloon' 'mass hallucination' are not valid. this is the point.

the explanation for that may be x, may be y, however, there isnt any explanation yet. so, we are identifying this phenomenon as unidentified FLYING OBJECT.

unidentified object may be terrestrial. they may be alien. the only thing we know is, they are not scheduled flights, or military flights, or move in the limits of what our known aerospace industry can produce. these may be some technology that is secretly used by military, while being kept away from public use. that's also a possibility. however, we dont know it yet.

in another sidenote, if, that's the case - that various militaries/governments of the world have developed much more capable craft using different technologies and they are keeping them secret - it would explain the current hush-hush and repression around ufo talk, ufo cases. because, if it came out that militaries/governments had had developed such technology that is way over capabilities of the current technology available for civilian use for long time, heads would roll.

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[mugnyte]

"Unexplained" means investigate - don't guess (without being able to test your guess with a repeatable experiment). Every time that happens in UFO investigation, it never results in finding aliens. Sorry, reality is not on your side here.

- the projector-based "cloaking" you mention is highly limited. (single point-of-view) it's more of a camouflage.
- rare-tribe isolation is an anthropological and humanitarian choice. underdeveloped immunity to disease is a strong reason to avoid contact alone.
- quantum mechanics does not purport to having built time machines for anything with mass. In fact, you may learn that it affirms that mass still cannot travel faster than light.

  None of this can be extrapolated to "aliens are among us".

Science doesn't flourish on the idea of "keep an open mind" alone. If you look into the science of things, you may conclude that getting aliens all the way to Earth just to hide in the clouds doesn't have a high probability or make much sense. Or, you may conclude that all the world is mistaken and only you know the truth, in which case I can only offer that famous quote "How's life in Crazytown? Must be fun over there."

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[unity100]

lets cut to the chase -> are you accepting that current science is unable to explain that phenomenon ?

Re:MUFON is not respected.

[mugnyte]

"Science" is a process of organized curiosity, investigation and explanation. It's worked for all topics of human knowledge - if there's a better way to accurately grow our body of knowledge, Science uses it (there is a science behind the improvement of the scientific method). From the bounds of the universe to mathematical theories for the building blocks of matter - and experiments to test them - we've been able to successfully harness our environment to do our will . It's even been able to explain the specific energy ranges where the properties of physics combine/erode. (Under the energy ranges of things like massive bodies like black holes, the same physics applies everywhere - which means we know what any space travel would entail for a given mass, for example)

  Your "current science" term is something I don't understand. Research is a massively dynamic area, across many areas. I would be very skeptical of anyone purporting to know the "latest" on all scientific realms.

Also, your term "that phenomenon" seems to refer to something earlier in the conversation, but I don't know which, since there's been so many straws grasped at.

Cutting to the chase, you can take this away from my perspective overall, since I doubt I'll be checking back again:

  - There is little possibility of life traveling to Earth from another planet to act as we have described in alien pop-culture. I would be more inclined to see a message from an intelligent source than a physical object. Given the thousands of years it takes for light to span these distances, it's not a communication we should egotistically expect given that we've relatively just arisen from the stone age and started making noises.

  - The endless searching among the clouds and photos for aliens/angels/ghosts is a huge waste of time. Each and every investigation has not resulted in any massive upheaval in common knowledge or a press conference where something amazing is presented. In fact, it's repeatedly only embarrassed and confused the believers into questioning why they are the only ones who "get it" - simply because they refused to look at their methods. The web allows these folks to band together and feel good about holding to their untestable theories, but it doesn't make them any more true.

  - There is a pathological issue with people who deride our own scientific might while claiming that "higher intelligence" resides just around the corner. We have comes close to explaining almost all of physics for many levels of energy (most of the colder states of space), and folks who think we haven't figured out much are vastly underestimating the huge steps we've taken. The technology we use every day are the final layer of consumer product that is built upon a strong and proven scientific method to explain our universe. One cannot simultaneously use the technology and yet claim we're "too stupid" to understand how aliens would arrive. On the contrary, most people are too ignorant to understand the details behind academic press releases.

  - A huge, huge number of people claiming otherworldly or supernatural sources for phenomenon have been debunked, revealed as a hoax, or simply forgotten. There are several centuries of alchemists, sages, priests, pseudo-scientists and quacks that have tried to get the population around them to believe in something without scientific proof it works or is real. They're all been left behind since their results have no purpose or have never been able to be used. There's no Ouija board, crystal ball, alien technology, spiritual talisman, magical photo/video or ghostly consultant that has pushed mankind into a larger body of workable knowledge. At best, we learn how we can dream things up and fool ourselves.

But here on /. you'll see this summed up as

"it's bullshit son, move on"

Ufology

[Anonymous Coward]

There is such a thing as a respected Ufologist? Where?

Re:Ufology

[zdepthcharge]

Yes, Jacques Valee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Vallee

Re:Ufology

[Slur]

...and I would add, J. Allen Hynek (who happens to have had a cameo in Close Encounters of the Third Kind).

I read a book by J. Allen Hynek and Jaques Valée when I was a kid which really captured my imagination. As an adult I am comfortable in the certainty that no alien beings or vessels have yet visited Earth. (And if Jesus existed, he was just another guru.) But I understand lots and lots of people have had psychological experiences similar to the effects of DMT. George Ellery Hale, for instance had an "elf" advisor which visited him at night.

Poor Article

[jesseck]

I read TFA, hoping to find out why the videos were dismissed as a hoax. In traditional /. fashion, I didn't follow any links in the article itself. But TFA seems to be a guy saying, "I said it was a hoax, I gave reasons, and now MUFON says it's a hoax". I was at least hoping for reasoning as to why it is considered a hoax- I couldn't find it.

Re:Poor Article

[trytoguess]

The link on "Ian O'Neill" leads to the relevant reasons. In short:

1. For a bright object, it's not making on the reflective dome below it shine.

2. Even though several videos came out, considering the location (a popular tourist attraction), there should be even more videos and eyewitness accounts.

3. Two of the videos have evidence of tampering.

http://news.discovery.com/space/jerusalem-ufo-almost-certainly-a-hoax.html

Re:Poor Article

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also more info on the other link in the article.

http://ufobriefcase.net/2011/03/29/mufon-dismisses-jerusalem-ufo-as-a-hoax/

Basically, more evidence of video editing, and the events in the videos aren't consistent overall.

Re:Poor Article

[dave420]

Surely the rational approach would be that until it can definitively be demonstrated as real it must be treated as a hoax. Unfortunately "ufologists" seem to think their pet theories are somehow immune to such an approach, for entirely bullshit reasons.

Re:Poor Article

[internettoughguy]

Surely the rational approach would be that until it can definitively be demonstrated as real it must be treated as a hoax. Unfortunately "ufologists" seem to think their pet theories are somehow immune to such an approach, for entirely bullshit reasons.

I wouldn't go so far as to say, "it must be a hoax", because that implies a malicious intent, when often its just a misinterpreted terrestrial phenomena. Until the point that phenomena is debunked, we can just use Carl Sagan's "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" maxim.

Re:Poor Article

[danhaas]

The dome does reflect light in the video. The question is that the reflection is completely diffuse and not specular. A gold dome should have at least some specular reflection; this is sign of video tampering.

Check one of the videos in your link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKR1OIQFsFg
It shows how to add diffuse reflections in a picture.

I gotta say this is a nice hoax video; I didn't know it was so easy to add stuff in a video so convincingly

Re:Poor Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, this evidence that it was hoaxed was put forth by sites like AboveTopSecret almost immediately upon the video release.

It's not about "disproving that it's true", it's about showing that it's a hoax, if possible, and in THIS case, it was clearly a hoax. The Jerusalem videos were a non-event shortly after their release in most of the UFO media.

Fox News got fooled (or didn't care, they are allowed to lie after all) and publicized these videos as the UFO media was calling "hoax". Fools.

Re:Poor Article

[Mr_Nitro]

I agree on most things, just one detail tho, how we do consider the approach of a different lifeform 'extraordinary'? it's like bumping into your neighbour, and we 're statistically certain that there are quite some, too. Marking the event of bumping into 'alien technology' as extraordinary is a totally anthropocentric point of view. imho. mrn

Re:Poor Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but there's clearly a reflection on the dome, as seen in the third catch on this video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTQVtyh4XkI

BTW, where are the evidences of tampering ?

Re:Poor Article

[canajin56]

Man, if you view first contact with new alien civilizations as a common, humdrum occurrence, I'd hate to see what you think IS unusual.

Re:Poor Article

[penguinchris]

I'll concede that it's well done, but regardless, it isn't at all convincing to me. It felt entirely artificial, the same way most of a movie like District 9 feels artificial no matter how outstanding the effects are. Even the interviews at the beginning of that movie - no special effects, just talking heads - felt artificial. I didn't see Cloverfield, but I saw the previews and felt the same way (I don't think they show the monster at all in the previews, even).

Besides the unnatural "shakiness" of the videos (which apparently was done in post-processing, which makes sense), the behavior of the object itself feels quite off, and then the movement at the end looks totally fake. Also, the audio from the people supposedly watching felt staged.

We have an instinctual understanding of what's physically possible and/or realistic, which is how we can tell things are fake in the movies or in things like this. How strongly the "fake" response comes depends on how well done it is of course, and I suspect it varies from person to person how well one can detect fake stuff. I'm sure there are plenty of people who see nothing implausible about special effects in movies, for example, whereas I am never, ever, even slightly convinced by special effects (pre-CGI it was easier to be convincing, even though it was less polished, because things had to have some semblance to physical reality since they were actually physical).

I can concede that alien visitors will most certainly have advanced abilities when it comes to harnessing physics, and that what feels like natural movement for a human-designed craft is not the same as what you'd expect from an advanced alien craft, so this instinct may easily be thrown off by genuine alien craft... but that's stretching things a bit.

Re:Poor Article

[Maritz]

Considering extraordinary in this context means "beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established", then I'd say it's a fairly typical use of the word. Once you point out the vast number of documented instances in which we have encountered aliens and their technology, I'll happily concede that it's a dull and common event.

Since aliens wouldn't want to be discovered...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then this being debunked is proof of a conspiracy by the aliens to keep us unaware of their presence.

It's a classic Double-Con. Nobody would expect it.

Until now.

Re:Since aliens wouldn't want to be discovered...

[Culture20]

It's a classic Double-Con.

Con. Con... Khan. Khan Souphanousinphone. It all makes sense now. "The ocean" is alien code for "home planet". But are they Chinese or Japanese?

Re:Since aliens wouldn't want to be discovered...

[Kell Bengal]

Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!

Stretching Postfixes.

[BadPirate]

UFO....ologists?

Re:Stretching Postfixes.

[zippthorne]

But don't bother with those wack-job UFO-ologers...

case still out on holycost; unproven & proven

[Anonymous Coward]

that's not really a detractor, as the .5 billion total remaining pupulation mandate, is moving along with & without the participation of the aliens &/or the deities. it's just #s

disarm

LV

[Anonymous Coward]

Louis Vuitton Outlet Store provide new handbag,purse,shoes,glasses and so on.Our site aslo include new female bag, new male bag.The price is affordable,welcome to Buy Louis Vuitton .

"MUFON has concluded it was a hoax."

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's news when an outfit concludes a video purporting to show a spacecraft piloted by extraterrestrial beings is a hoax?

Will it be news also if someone else accepts that water is wet?

FFS.

Mufon...

[Anonymous Coward]

MUFON people, nothing to see here.

Re:Carl Sagan + Assasins Creed 3

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the idea of the ancient astronaut theory is that these angels were just astronauts from another world. It could be humans who made earth the way it is by creating us in their image, it could be time travelers, and it could be beings that we haven't ever seen before. At the very least, it makes a great Assassins game.

lol

[Jeian]

one of the oldest, largest, and _most respected_ UFO investigation organizations in the world ... and how respected is that, exactly?

Planet icon?

[Tablizer]

Slashdot has a saucer+cow icon, so why did they use a planet icon for the story?

Not Carl Sagan

[Ceriel Nosforit]

I have a problem with Carl Sagan. He delivers skepticism with dismissal and a know-it-all attitude, seemingly based on the assumption that popular science is a... a godsend.

Real Scientists, like Real Programmers, have a very different approach to their philosophy. They don't madly hack and slash with Occam's Razor since OR also has the little talked about, additional qualifier of the need to provide a full explanation; not just the simplest one. E.g. I think that if Carl Sagan had his way with the Standard Model, neutrino mass would be considered an error of nature and anyone who attempted to measure it he would label as a quack or a crank.

Carl Sagan and self-labeled "skeptics" are the Penn and Teller's Bullshit to everybody else's Mythbusters.

Re:Not Carl Sagan

[DuranDuran]

I have a problem with Carl Sagan. He delivers skepticism with dismissal and a know-it-all attitude, seemingly based on the assumption that popular science is a... a godsend.

[emphasis added] Your comment begins by misunderstanding almost everything about Carl Sagan, and goes downhill from there.

Re:Not Carl Sagan

[c6gunner]

Carl Sagan and self-labeled "skeptics" are the Penn and Teller's Bullshit to everybody else's Mythbusters.

The mythbusters are skeptics. Adam Savage has made numerous appearances at The Amazing Meeting - the foremost skeptical conference in the world. He's closely allied with the skeptical movement as a whole, and the show in general is a very simple application of skepticism to everyday claims. If you think that "self described skeptics" are philosophically separate from the Mythbusters, you don't understand skepticism. And - as your comment has amply demonstrated - you clearly don't understand Sagan.

Re:Not Carl Sagan

[mug funky]

Penn and Teller's Bullshit to everybody else's Mythbusters.

what does that even mean?

both shows are entertaining and very light on the science.

Re:Not Carl Sagan

[inasity_rules]

Actually, I found mythbusters to be very light on science and have rather poor engineering, though perhaps I didn't give it much of a chance... I don't think we should hold up an entertainment show as an example of skepticism... They may be skeptics, but I'm unconvinced they are good skeptics...

Just saying.

Re:Not Carl Sagan

[c6gunner]

Actually, I found mythbusters to be very light on science and have rather poor engineering

Allow me to repeat myself:

He's closely allied with the skeptical movement as a whole, and the show in general is a very simple application of skepticism to everyday claims.

Also, obligatory xkcd.

Re:Not Carl Sagan

[inasity_rules]

Sure lets teach people methodology that can lead them to incorrect conclusions.... Google can help you find more if you like.

~This can only end well.... The simple application is woefully inadequate. However, it does make good television.

Re:Not Carl Sagan

[thoromyr]

I get rather annoyed by Myth Busters. People I know who watch it will refer to it as if something done on the show actually proved something. "Well, Myth Buster's covered that and..." Its bullshit. It doesn't matter if people involved in the show are active skeptics or not, Myth Busters does a disservice to science in general because it functions as entertainment, not science, and their misapplication of scientific method misleads people.

While I've seen only a small number of their shows not a single one actually demonstrated anything other deliberately misengineering something will cause it to fail (but, hey, its all good when were laughing at early inventors, right?), or carefully rigging the final, "real" effort to produce the desired result. My data set is only a small portion of the population (I haven't observed that many shows), but it does not lead me to expect something different from the rest -- especially when they are predictable in presenting a particular entertainment-oriented point of view. That is the key, Myth Busters is about providing entertainment, some good laughs, and that is it. Their angle is to appeal to the McGuyver in the audience, the Missouri motto of "Show Me." That can lead to some fun viewing, but it doesn't tend to go with good methodology.

In short, I concur, and would extend, "I don't think we should hold up an entertainment show as an example of skepticism..." or science.
I'm not against entertainment, and entertainment shows are frequently divorced from reality. When I watch Burn Notice the narration will blithely state various absurdities as being "taught in spy school" -- but it is a fiction/fantasy show, I've never had anyone try to tell me that reality works the way it does in Burn Notice, but I have with Myth Busters, and that is what is annoying.

Re:Not Carl Sagan

[Duradin]

"or carefully rigging the final, "real" effort to produce the desired result"

Since you've only seen a small number of their show you may not know that the "final, real effort" is generally the step where they do what it takes to replicate the myth with little reliance on chance to make it work.

From Car vs. Snowplow, we know the 'reality' point is somewhere between (but not including) a conventional snowplow and a rocket powered wedge. Where that point is other than beyond a conventional snowplow isn't important. A car can be split in half by a moving object but that object is not a snowplow.

Re:Not Carl Sagan

[c6gunner]

Oh noes, they were wrong! That NEVER happens in science!

I think the XKCD cartoon covered all that needs to be said. There will always be dickheads like you who have to shit all over everything in sight. I don't really care how you relieve yourself - just don't do it around me.

Re:Not Carl Sagan

[inasity_rules]

Science corrects itself. Your heros don't. Why can't you see that? Thanks by the way for keeping this polite and civil.

It's April 1st here! or is it... ?!?!

[balzi]

Well it's ticked over April 1st in Australia, but there's a few hours to go in the US. So while it's probably not an April's fool joke, it would be very clever and ironic to have a story about a hoax that poked fun at a marginal group, that turned out to be a "joke's on you" non-hoax. It would be the pinnacle of double-negative April Fool's jokes spawning a new genre of April Fool's jokes. I love the complexity and humour and mind-bending second-guesses, but unfortunately I think I've just convinced myself that the ./ mods would *never* be able to concieve such a devious plot. oh well!

UFO's?

[ju4nsh1tt0]

UFO is a joke

Wikileaks and UFOs

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, wikileaks has a lot of potential in UFO investigations.

Technically speaking, there are credible reports of UFOs in the United States all the time. Often, when the Air Force tests some classified aircraft at 2 in the morning, and some guy calls up and says "I saw a UFO right over the Air Force base..." the Air Force says "We didn't detect anything on our radar." So, yes, this is a UFO. Technically, this is also a government cover up. But, it is not some kind of alien thing. It is just a standard procedure to not release classified data in the press.

So, actually, Wikileaks has a lot of potential for UFO investigators. But, the fact that so many UFO sitings were just tests of the stealth fighter bomber or whatever is not really very interesting secrets for whistle blowers/thrill seekers/retards that want to risk divulging classified data. And even the UFOlogists (?) wouldn't like or believe it because it doesn't support their hypothesis (dellusion?) that UFOs are aliens.

               

A plea to skeptics

[Anonymous Coward]

Go easy on people talking about UFOs.

First, some background about me. I am a middle aged engineer. I have moderate political views. I am not a fan of the esoteric. My views on UFOs were formed as a child when I took an interest in astronomy. Compared to the humbling majesty of the cosmos, the fiction of UFOs was, and still is, boring.

Then in 1995 I saw a UFO. It was mid-October, about 4:00pm on an overcast Sunday afternoon. I was alone in a rural area about 200 km north of Toronto, Canada. I first observed the object at about 40 degrees from the horizon directly to the south-west. My first reaction to think that someone was flying a tetrahedral kite, because although the object was quite small, it clearly was shaped like a pyramid. My second reaction was of surprise because I doubted any of the neighbours in that area would even know what a tetrahedral kite was, let alone fly one.

I watched it for a period of five to ten minutes. The object slowly moved in a straight west-to-east line before becoming too small to observe in roughly the south-east direction. During this time I observed that the object oscillated about it's vertical axis. There was enough detail to be certain that it was pyramidal in shape, not merely triangular, definitely not shaped like any flying wing, airplane or helicopter and that there were no rotors, propellors or jets. There was no associated sound. It moved too great a distance to be tethered. It did not move in the direction of the wind, which was light from the south-south-west. It did move in a straight line at constant velocity. It did not bob or weave. It appeared to maintain a constant distance above the ground as it moved.

If my observations are true and complete, then we have a problem. The problem is that we have an object flying by unknown means which was natural or manufactured, and if it was manufactured, then either this object was man made or not. Pyramids don't naturally float through the sky in the manner I described. If it was man made, then it flew in a way that I (as an engineer) cannot explain with public knowledge, which implies conspiracy. If it was not man made, then we talking aliens. All the options are nutty. The obvious conclusion is that there's something wrong with my observations. Privately, I know my observations to be true and again privately, I do have a preference for one of the nutty conclusions, but it doesn't really matter.

What is important is that when someone says they have seen a UFO or believe in conspiracies or esoterica or whatever, even though the engineer and the astronomer within say, "You've got to be kidding", another part of me says, "Hear them out, there might be something interesting here". I'll admit, it's never borne anything yet, but there's always a chance.

Re:A plea to skeptics

[tibit]

If you're an engineer, you should humbly presuppose that you simply don't know enough what it is, and that most likely whatever observations you made are subject to biases typical of eyewitnesses. If you truly think that it's "interesting" that you don't know what something is (it's unidentified, ha), then you must suffer from horrible obsession of identifying stuff. A lot of the stuff we see is pretty much unidentified, people just don't realize it much. Our brains replace the visual reality with a best fit representation, based on previous experiences. When not actively looking for something odd, our brain will interrupt us only when something is "just too weird"; otherwise it keeps feeding us the best-fit. Go somewhere where it's "visually busy". A park, maybe. A place that you walk through often. Look around. You'll be surprised.

Re:A plea to skeptics

[inasity_rules]

That is interesting. However, it could also have been a strangely shaped model aircraft... There is a saying amoung model aircraft hobbyists, if you give anything enough power, it will fly... Even a brick. Though I have yet to see that one...

I'm not saying my explanation is the true one, but the problem with these things is it is very easy to raise reasonable doubt. Unfortunately the majority of skeptics consider reasonable doubt the same thing as disproof and therefore feel justified in dismissing things out of hand. Their loss I say.

Re:A plea to skeptics

[Cytotoxic]

Clearly Goa'uld....

Re:A plea to skeptics

[Maritz]

I think skeptics should be polite when dealing with people who are honest and on the level. The thing some believers forget is that many skeptics also 'want' this phenomena to be real - it's not like ET/UFOs are a 'supernatural' concept as such, just a fairly unlikely one. I think confirmed contact with sentient ET would be the most profound event in human history.

But people have to be honest with themselves and do some reading up on how our perception is imperfect and not a 100% reliable guide to phenomena out in the world. Sure, maybe some people really are seeing real UFOs. Sucks to be them because I won't believe it until I see compelling evidence. But I agree that the tone from skeptics isn't always ideal.

Is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone noticed that there never seems to be an HD camera / camcorder around at the same time as a UFO sighting? Come on folks, either show me some HD aliens or an HD hoax. Keep in mind I really don't care which one you show me, all I'm asking for is a step up in quality. ...Is that too much to ask?

UFOs are hilarious by definition

[tibit]

even MUFON has concluded it was a hoax

No shit, Sherlock. So what would it be if it wasn't a hoax? It would be nothing more than an unidentified flying object. The fact that something is a UFO is a rather mundane statement of fact: no, we don't know what it is yet. Tough shit.

People have this crazy expectation that if you keep randomly shooting pictures, everything on them will be identifiable. Well, guess what, sometimes it's too hard to tell. Yes, really. UFOs will appear on photos and movies by definition. The bad aspect is that everyone associates UFOs with paranormal or extraterrestrial activity -- now that's what I call batshit crazy.

Nothing here, move along, people are stupid like always, keep the line moving,...

Definition

[TheSpoom]

oxymoron (,oksi'moron)

— n , pl -mora
rhetoric an epigrammatic effect, by which contradictory terms are used in conjunction: living death ; fiend angelical

"one of the oldest, largest, and most respected UFO investigation organizations in the world"

The unwritten rule?

[SwampChicken]

It appears that with so many people with mobile-devices with inbuilt cameras and such today, filming all sorts of weird & inappropriate stuff up close (sometimes too close).. When snapping UFO's in your immediate vicinity: the unwritten rule is to: a) get back into your car. b) drive 100 miles away. c) locate yourself behind some type of dirty plate glass window (preferably somewhere where there's lots of people screaming/yelling) d) start shaking the camera violently (in preparation of taking the shot) e) check that zoom is all the way out. e) take the shot.

That has been my sig material for years

[aepervius]

I wish that book would be mandatory reading as early as possible in the school system.

Reverse April Fool's?

[zr-rifle]

In Soviet Russia, UFOs hoax you?

MELFN

[Alsee]

the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), one of the oldest, largest, and most respected UFO investigation organizations in the world

Announcement: I have justed founded MELFN.
The Mutual ELF Network is one of the oldest, largest, and most respected Elf investigation organizations in the world.

P.S.
Basic level membership dues are $20 per year.
Gold level supporter membership is $50 per year.
Adamantium level Lifetime Believer membership is available for a one-time $2500 contribution, a portion of which will fund the purchase of investigative hardware.

-

Re:MELFN

[Cytotoxic]

the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), one of the oldest, largest, and most respected UFO investigation organizations in the world

Announcement: I have justed founded MELFN.
The Mutual ELF Network is one of the oldest, largest, and most respected Elf investigation organizations in the world.

P.S.
Basic level membership dues are $20 per year.
Gold level supporter membership is $50 per year.
Adamantium level Lifetime Believer membership is available for a one-time $2500 contribution, a portion of which will fund the purchase of investigative hardware.

-

I think I can get a few bucks more for my MILFN memberships.....

just remember

[Mr_Nitro]

that sometimes some people make the 'hoax debunking' a career. It would be funny to put some real equipment in the field and see that 'debunked' as totally fake 2d/3d effect by these 'pros'. I bet there would be so many people with a bitter taste in their mouth. Often reality of facts is the most amazing discovery and it is hardly accepted. (ohh surely we can't be in any way related to those monkeys! can't we??) mrn

Ridiculous Conspiracies

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

I've been to Jerusalem countless times. The spot where this shot was taken is from atop the Talpiyot Tayelet. I've been there a few times, and by night you can see them passing for hours. They're UAV's from the IDF patrolling the skies. They're not secret, so they have some lights emitting from them. They look exactly like that.

Anything will make sensation these days, I guess, with uninformed masses jumping on it like hot cookies.

Re: reflective light and ufo's

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had a UFO fly maybe 100-200 feet silently above me. I wasn't alone or intoxicated (a little tired but snapped-to FAST!) A strange quality of the lights was that, though they were very, very bright, they didn't seem to light anything else. The trees, us, the car. That was about 13 years ago. Three years ago I saw a triangle fly over my home as if it were on "autopilot". The lights at each corner were dim amber while a center, larger light seemed to be "swirling". The light did not light any fuselage. Just black. But when you distort gravity, you distort light but also TIME. These aren't "spaceships". They are time-travel craft. By definition, if you know they exist, it is the only conclusion. They have the ability to reach a time/place coordinate and manuver here. Their ultimate source and purpose is as big a mystery to me as ever. I would say that the timing was curious, on the beginning of the rebellions in the Middle East which raises the possibility of military psi-ops.