"All I have to do is look around this room I am in, with all the books I've collected over the years, and say no fricking way!"
I never said this would eliminate physical mediums. As long as there are people willing to pay for physical possessions, there will always be a market for them. But you can't ignore the reality that millions of people are swapping digital media, and aren't going to stop.
"You're describing a world in which everything is the same, everything is homogenized."
No, I'm not. I don't even know where this comment is coming from.
"Do we REALLY want all culture filtering through our ISP connection?"
Some of us do. Some of us want the opposite. Most are somewhere in between. Please see my first point.
"I don't think I want my experience of most novels and my favorite musical selections to be affected knowledge that with each passing read/listen of it, I'm paying for it."
Why not? The only difference now is you pay for it in advance, and probably MORE money than you'd be spending if you only paid a tiny fee when you used it. It's really just a perceptual difference. I think most of us would save money overall, and experience much greater diversity of media.
Right now, content producers are doing everything they can to PREVENT public access to their works, because of piracy. If we could change to a pay-per-use model, the situation would reverse itself! Content producers would bend over backwards to get their stuff out in the open and available to everyone. Peer to peer networks would become goldmines instead of threats.
"I don't want a subscribed lifestyle any more than I need to. Phones, cable, sure. Static artistic possessions? No."
First off, I'm not talking about a subscription. In a subscription, you pay a fee for a certain time period, regardless of how much you use the service. I'm talking about only paying for what you actually use.
Now, "Static artistic possessions".... this is really the heart of it. How can we OWN art such as a song or film? If anyone OWNS it, I think it's the creator(s). The rest of us merely experience it, which is what I'm proposing we pay for.
"I make my living as a writer and a photographer; what you propose has no attraction to me. It may be an "innovative" commercial design, but it intrudes on the inherent nature of the objects you're talking about."
Well, then please explain the inherent nature of the objects in question.
I've always thought pay-per-use was a perfectly reasonable idea, as long as the usage fees were low enough.
Imagine, you could build a vast library for free.. in fact, you wouldn't even NEED a personal library, because EVERYTHING would be available freely on the net.
Then, you pay based on what you use. So, if you listen to the latest Britney song 1000 times, you owe her some cash. And why shouldn't you?? If you listen to the song that much, obviously you're enjoying it.
If you grab a movie and only watch it once, you pay next to nothing. But if it becomes your all time favourite, and you watch it over and over again, you pay more money. It's totally fair.
I know a lot of people would be opposed to this, because they want to pay a flat OWNERSHIP fee, and get infinite usage. But in the Internet connected world, where anything digitizable can be copied infinitely for near zero cost, I posit that the concept of ownership is obsolete. We have the capacity for everyone to own everything, in other words, and just pay for what they actually use.
Speaking for myself, I have a library of hundreds of DVDs, which has cost thousands of dollars to build. If instead of purchasing copies, I could watch ANY movie I wanted for say, 50 cents, I imagine I would have seen a lot more movies, for a lot cheaper, than I would've by purchasing a personal library. And the number of times I've seen Aliens could probably fund Cameron's retirement.;)
Now of course, I'm not saying converting to such a system would be easy, or even possible right now. It would require universal, mandatory ID3 tags or equivalent, a ubiquitous micropayment infrastructure, and global co-operation of everyone who designs media playback mechanisms.
Thanks, that was well put. Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary proof, this is a classic skeptic trick... exactly the same as the "fake moon landers"... landing on the moon is an "extraordinary claim", thus we need extraordinary evidence... the testimony of people who were there is no longer good enough, neither are the video records, telemetry data, physical moon samples, and so on. There will NEVER be enough evidence to convice these people... ditto the UFO skeptics.. the big difference is they're the majority (for now).
Furthermore, who is to say that extraterrestrial visitations are an extraordinary claim in the first place? That's a completely arbitrary assertion. Quite simply, nobody is in possession of any facts that indicate such a claim is extraordinary. Could be quite common for all we know. (Perhaps we are a weekly feature on an alien version of "Animal Planet"... "Crikey! We're gonna get our saucer RIGHT up close to these buggers. Uh oh.. they don't look too happy. You have to be careful with Earthlings, they can react quite irrationally when scared! Me mate who was studying Roswell a few years back vanished without a trace!")
Humour aside, the point is that all evidence should be examined with the same respect and standards (and healthy skepticism.. there are plenty of hoaxes out there), not ignored or twisted because the conclusion it might point to is "hard to believe".
What they described at Rendlesham CANNOT BE ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED. It's as simple as that. Therefore the only argument is to claim they're not credible sources, and their descriptions are innaccurate. This is an argument that assumes the conclusion before the argument.
First of all, seriously, thanks for taking the time to reply. It's nice to have a thought provoking, rational discussion about UFOs in a UFO thread instead of, say, making predictable, worn-out jokes about the Royal Family and such.:)
"This is true when observations are taken under carefully controlled conditions"
So, we can conveniently disregard ALL UFO sightings until one occurs in a laboratory? This is the essence of that "logical trickery" article I posted. Nothing is good enough for the UFO disbelievers, they always raise the bar for what is acceptable and believable when any new evidence rolls in.
"However, chance eyewitness accounts of *anything*..."
This isn't a chance eyewitness account, like a single bystander witnessing a car crash, and asked to recall his memory later. This is several people investigating something, and RECORDING their impressions AS they see them.
"Silouette of trees obstructing the light would do this [create a metallic appearance] quite nicely. [...] I can believe that the blue colour was an illusion"
Pure speculation deliberately concocted to make the observational evidence match better with the proposed hypothesis. Sorry.
"I have no explanation offered for why the pulsing light was described as red."
Oh.. I thought the lighthouse light WAS red, but you're quite right, it doesn't say that anywhere. Thanks for strengthening my argument;)
"A meteor as bright as the full moon had passed overhead a few minutes ago."
The meteor timing doesn't make any sense to me. Your article mentions the meteor passed around 3am. Halt mentions in the transcript it is 1:48am when he notes the animal noises. Wasn't the meteor supposed to be verified as what they saw in the first place? How can this be if it happened later? Either way, there is nothing to support that the meteor passed WHEN the animals started acting up, and I don't believe the animals would collectively just wait a while before reacting.
It doesn't explain how the object vanished and was spotted again "an hour later near the back gate."
Obstructed by trees as the observers moved would be my first guess. Other explanations doubtless exist.
They were LOOKING for it. I'm sorry but I can't see them losing such a bright light behind some trees for an hour, and it suddenly reappearing. They said it lit the whole forest. Passing in front of a tree isn't going to suddenly make it impossible to find again.
I wouldn't presume to argue the finer points of radioactivity with you, I'll take your word on the tree thing... however, I notice you ONLY mentioned the tree. What about the readings which peaked in the ground depressions?
You left out the part about the "red sun-like light" that pulsed and gave off the glowing particles observation being through trees, which means it could have been just about anything. Best guess: one or more people with flashlights checking out the site. A red pulsing light sounds more like a campfire, but wouldn't move.
I left out the part about the red light cuz I thought that was easily explained by the lighthouse, sorry. People waving flashlights about in the woods do not appear to be red, blue, green lights in the sky moving rapidly with angular movements, or elliptical objects in the sky (under a 8-12x zoom, too), or an object in the sky that shines down a beam of light once in a while. And campfires do not pulse, they flicker. Pulse is a word used to describe something with a regular beat. You could argue they might've used poor word choice, but again, that would be twisting the observational evidence to fit better with the hypothesis.
Extraterrestrial life could visit the Earth without there being some big conspiracy, you know. In fact any reasonable, open-minded mathematical analysis actually predicts it. The fact that we should, but haven't seen any aliens yet is known as Fermi's Paradox.
The people who refuse to acknowledge facts and evidence are actually on YOUR side. Please read this. It covers all the reasons why scientists have stubbornly refused to admit there is an enormous body of verified (ie, visual reports which match radar evidence) observational evidence to suggest that we have been visited by craft that are 1) physically solid, 2) under intelligent control, and 3) in possession of propulsion technology far beyond human understanding.
I particularly like this piece:
"This type of logic can be successfully applied to any claim. For instance, let's declare that dinosaurs are an extraordinary claim. This declaration requires no logical substantiation, just the way skeptics use their nearly zero a priori probability of extraterrestrial visitation to declare the claim extraordinary with no logical defense whatsoever, given the insufficient information to determine this probability. So, we have declared dinosaurs to be an extraordinary claim. The next step is to reject all fossil evidence for dinosaurs, since fossils are only acceptable for ordinary claims such as woolly mammoths; for extraordinary dinosaur claims, fossils are worthless. What we need, as dinosaur skeptics, is physical proof of an intact dinosaur. And, to make it even more similar to the skeptic approach, we don't need to defend the rationale of the demand for physical proof of dinosaurs; the fact that it is an extraordinary claim allows us to demand the very upper boundary of conceptually feasible modes of proof -- but conceptual feasibility does not translate into practical feasibility. Sure, I can demand physical proof, but will I get it? Is it worth ignoring fossil evidence in my wait for physical proof?
We could extend the analogy further by applying more skeptic logical tricks. For instance, dinosaur articles are published in journals which already believe in dinosaurs; therefore, it is biased and one-sided, and hardly representative of truly critical peer review. We could assert that all fossils are best explained as hoaxes, misidentifications of known and unknown geological processes, and hallucinations and/or misinterpretations by overzealous paleontologists imposing their belief system on an anomalous rock. This, I can contend, is the "simplest explanation", and I don't have to worry about using overstrenuous logic because, in an absence of physical proof of dinosaurs, any explanation is simpler, no matter how contrived and convoluted! This is the essence of the scientific rejection of the UFO evidence: an overwhelming need to disbelieve coupled with a shameful lack of research into the actual evidence."
No offense, but I think you "aliens are impossible" types are as close minded as the "flat earthers" and "fake moon landing" types.. no matter what volume of evidence you are shown, it's never good enough. The only difference between you and "conspiracy nuts" is that you have the backing of a bunch of scientists who don't want to admit how stubborn and blind they've been.
They're not British, they're United States Air Force. The summary report starts out with "1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300L),two USAF security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outside the back gate at RAF Woodbridge.", and the "Halt" in question is "CHARLES I. HALT, Lt Col, USAF" as noted at the bottom of the transcript.
Thank you for responding. Yes, I've read the lighthouse theory. It's good, and raises some questions, but it simply can't explain all the observations, and it dismisses any observations that cannot be explained by its hypothesis as being "a marvellous product of human imagination."
Here is a very logical and well written essay on UFO skepticism. In particular, I would like to direct your attention to the section entitled, "Occam's Razor and the Skeptics", roughly two thirds of the way down. I shall quote it here:
"Occam's Razor and the Skeptics
The UFO skeptics don't understand Occam's Razor, and they abuse it regularly. They think they understand it, but they don't. What it means is that when several hypotheses of varying complexity can explain a set of observations with equal ability, the first one to be tested should be the one that invokes the fewest number of uncorroborated assumptions. If this simplest hypothesis is proven incorrect, the next simplest is chosen, and so forth.
But the skeptics forget two parts: the part regarding the test of the simpler hypotheses, and the part regarding explaining all of the observations. What a debunker will do is mutilate and butcher the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses, which is the inverse of the proper approach. The proper approach is to alter the hypothesis to accommodate the observations. One should never alter the observations to conform with a hypothesis by saying "if we assume the object was not physical, despite the level of evidence that would imply the solidity of a conventional aircraft with near-certainty, then we can also assume the object was not moving, was not exhibiting the color orange, was not 50 feet in diameter as described, and then declare that it was really Venus."
Do you see what I'm getting at? The lighthouse hypothesis could explain a light appearing to move in the forest, but it doesn't explain how they observed what they described "as being metallic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high." It doesn't explain how it could have "bank(s) of blue lights underneath". It doesn't attempt to explain why "the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy." It doesn't explain how the object vanished and was spotted again "an hour later near the back gate."
It can account for the presence of radiation, the depressions on the ground, and the tree markings, but it can't explain the relationship... ie WHY they recorded a "peak reading in the three depressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions." Is it just a coincidence that the radiation levels from cosmic rays and whatnot are measurably strongest in the depressions and centre of the 'landing zone', and the side of the tree facing it? Perhaps. Unlikely though.
It doesn't explain how "At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then disappeared." It doesn't explain how "three star-like objects were noticed in the sky. Two objects to the north and one to the south [which] moved rapidly in sharp angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lights.", or "The objects to the north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then turned to full circles.", or "The object to the south was visible for two or three hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time." (Yes I know it mentions these last observations. Saying the above is "probably" just stars is NOT an adequate scientific explanation for these very specific and detailed observations corroborated by multiple eye witnesses)
So, in conclusion, the lighthouse hypothesis attempts to 'mutilate and butcher the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses'. This is NOT the Scientific Method.
Have you read this transcript and report? This is a military report, drawn from multiple eye witnesses, and includes scientific measurements of depressions, abrasions, and radiation levels.. this is not some hick in a trailer park trying for 15 minutes of fame.
Furthermore, I think it's a bit dismissive in this case to call it "just some object in the air", like it could be a weather balloon or swamp gas or something. This is an object that moves and behaves like no known terrestrial phenomenon.
What do you think it could be? Ball lightning? Its movements seem too deliberate. Secret American or Russian aircraft with magnetic/gravitic propulsion and stealth tech? About as hard to swallow as aliens.
I'm not saying OMG! Aliens!... But, I think this is pretty damn interesting.
Yeah, but look what happened when the music industry started tracking every single record sale. All of a sudden they realized Hip Hop sold like mad, and now it's everywhere.
Polling everyone is only going to confirm that most people like lowbrow garbage. Most people are morons, so we will continue to be shovelled cheap, instant gratification drivel.
Whoah! Did you just call Babylon 5 "repeat-o-crap" and liken it to the works of Roddenberry?
Babylon is ANYTHING but repetitive or derivative. It is quite simply the most epic science fiction saga every told on any type of screen. The series is structured like a novel, with each season in turn representing Introduction, Rising Action, Climax, Complications, Denouement. This is pretty much unique in American television, although B5's influence is starting to show up in other shows. Characters grow, love, laugh, hate, change, and die. Vast empires rise, clash, and fall. Conspiracies within conspiracies. Order versus chaos. Wars of aggression, idealogy, and liberation. Entire planets and civilizations burn. And every single episode ties into other episodes.. it's all interwoven so beautifully with a depth of foresight I've never, ever, seen before. Most episodes not only benefit from, but DEMAND repeat viewings to get everything from them. It also pioneered the regular use of CGI on a TV show, and was scientifically accurate enough for NASA to show a continuing interest. (Rotational gravity, realistic space flight physics, etc)
Now, I will agree that, strictly comparing FIRST SEASONS ONLY, Firefly has better character development and acting than B5. But overall storyline? Babylon is king. No contest. I have yet to meet ANYONE who has seen B5 in its entirety and claims another sci-fi show is better.
Do yourself a favour. Wait until Babylon 5 second season is out on DVD (should be early 2003). Borrow or rent the first two seasons. From season 1, watch "Signs and Portents", and "Chrysalis". Skip the rest of season 1 for now (go back once you're hooked to fill in the details), and then just start watching all of season 2, it's amazing once it gets going. And seasons 3 & 4 are even better. 5 is a BIT of a drop from the highs of 3 & 4, but it's still good stuff. And the series finale will leave you a tearful, emotional wreck... it's one of the bravest, most powerfully moving endings I've ever seen.
Well thanks for the link, but I don't buy that even slightly. You're trying to support a claim that a 100 pound man, with scrap steel from a nearby junkyard, was able to build some magical device which was capable of moving rocks up to 30 tonnes around?
The fact is, nobody, including modern engineers, have the slightest clue how he was able to manipulate such enormous loads at all, much less with the astounding precision demonstrated. Did you read that link I sent? Here is an interesting excerpt:
'In 1936, when developers threatened to set up a subdivision near Florida City, Leedskalnin bought ten acres in nearby Homestead with money saved through years of performing odd jobs for neighboring farmers. He dismantled the largely finished Castle and transferred it block by block to the new location. Each piece was placed on a pair of iron girders mounted on a makeshift truck chassis and transported over ten miles to Homestead.
For this major operation, he relied on outside help for the first and last time. He hired a tractor, but insisted that its driver not be present whenever the blocks were placed on his truck. The driver showed up at 9:00 every morning, returning in late afternoon to find the chassis loaded with coral monoliths.
Once, the driver absentmindedly returned after less than half an hour for a lunchpail he had forgotten on the seat of the tractor. He was astounded to see several multi-ton stones already laid neatly on the girders. "It was impossible to have stacked those gigantic blocks in under 30 minutes," he recalled, "even with a steam-powered derrick. And Ed had no equipment, just a simple tackle and chain hoist. Yet, there they were, piled like cord wood.'
The rumours I find far more fascinating (and hard to swallow, I am the first to admit) are the ones that say Kamen is perfecting a personal levitation device.
Bob Metcalfe of 3Com stated "Some months ago when speculation was running high, I said that Kamen's It was more important than the Internet, but not as important as cold fusion, had cold fusion worked out. The It I was talking about, which I did not disclose, was NOT Segway."
Now, do you really think that he would claim a Stirling-engine powered scooter is more important than the Internet? I for one doubt that. Now if it turns out to actually be a viable form of LEVITATION.... all of a sudden the hype, hyperbole, and secrecy starts to fit...
And before you laugh and state this is ridiculous and impossible, read up on the Coral Castle and try to explain it. (Not to mention the pyramids, stonehenge, etc)
I bought my ticket to Episode 1 about 6 hours before the movie started, proceeded to laugh at everyone waiting in line, showed up with a friend 30 minutes before it started, and still managed to get a near perfect seat. Mind you, I live in Canada, so our movie theatre is big enough to hold all several dozen of us, except for the Eskimos, but they keep their igloos and polar bars pretty far from Toronto street anyway.
Potter? Decent but overrated. Unworthy of being one of the highest grossing films in history.. but then again, so are Episodes 1 & 2.
Oh, and I'll trade you a Lord of the Pit for a communicator and a good Marina Sirtis story. And my bruise deck could totally kill yours with my mana tied behind my back. NYEAH!
Now that's a true Hero:) And the prosecutor's office declined to press charges too! That single handedly revived my faith in the American justice system;)
The big problem with Oni is that you progress through the game solely by finding those stupid computer monitors everywhere. It's a mindless switch hunt to end all switch hunts. Find the switch, open the door. Fight some guys. Repeat 1000 times.
Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the game for its fighting, and have taken the time to beat it... but "one of the BEST 3rd person action games?".. I dunno... it's too repetitive to earn that title, IMHO. I'd be more inclined to go with something like Tomb Raider (even though it's now VERY dated), or Max Payne, or Hitman or something. Oni IS a great fighting game though... just get sick of all that damn switch hunting.
Yes, this is from Transformers: The Movie. Since I've seen it recently, (my roommate has the DVD) I will add a bit more detail:
The Decepticons attack Autobot city and are winning. Prime comes racing in, does this cool jump over the Decepticons, taking out a whole bunch with his blaster. Him and Megatron fight up on this high platform, Prime gets shot a few times badly, Megatron charges in for the kill, but Prime flips him over the edge of the platform, causing him to fall and take serious damage. Soundwave scoops him up and the Decepticons retreat. Later, Prime dies in a medical (service?) bay, gives the Matrix to Optimus Prime. Megatron is thrown out of the Decepticon's shuttle by Starscream because they need to lighten the load. Megatron is later picked up by Unicron (huge planet eating robot, voiced by Orson Welles), and transformed into Galvatron, then he returns to the Decepticons to find Starscream being coronated as the new leader, whom he promptly blasts into a small pile of dust. The Matrix passes to Hot Rod at the end of the movie, who becomes Rhodimus Prime.
Slashdot Mirror
"All I have to do is look around this room I am in, with all the books I've collected over the years, and say no fricking way!"
I never said this would eliminate physical mediums. As long as there are people willing to pay for physical possessions, there will always be a market for them. But you can't ignore the reality that millions of people are swapping digital media, and aren't going to stop.
"You're describing a world in which everything is the same, everything is homogenized."
No, I'm not. I don't even know where this comment is coming from.
"Do we REALLY want all culture filtering through our ISP connection?"
Some of us do. Some of us want the opposite. Most are somewhere in between. Please see my first point.
"I don't think I want my experience of most novels and my favorite musical selections to be affected knowledge that with each passing read/listen of it, I'm paying for it."
Why not? The only difference now is you pay for it in advance, and probably MORE money than you'd be spending if you only paid a tiny fee when you used it. It's really just a perceptual difference. I think most of us would save money overall, and experience much greater diversity of media.
Right now, content producers are doing everything they can to PREVENT public access to their works, because of piracy. If we could change to a pay-per-use model, the situation would reverse itself! Content producers would bend over backwards to get their stuff out in the open and available to everyone. Peer to peer networks would become goldmines instead of threats.
"I don't want a subscribed lifestyle any more than I need to. Phones, cable, sure. Static artistic possessions? No."
First off, I'm not talking about a subscription. In a subscription, you pay a fee for a certain time period, regardless of how much you use the service. I'm talking about only paying for what you actually use.
Now, "Static artistic possessions".... this is really the heart of it. How can we OWN art such as a song or film? If anyone OWNS it, I think it's the creator(s). The rest of us merely experience it, which is what I'm proposing we pay for.
"I make my living as a writer and a photographer; what you propose has no attraction to me. It may be an "innovative" commercial design, but it intrudes on the inherent nature of the objects you're talking about."
Well, then please explain the inherent nature of the objects in question.
I never said public libraries should be eliminated.
Good point, I'll rephrase: if you PLAY the latest Britney song 1000 times.
Sorry, what are we talking about again?
I've always thought pay-per-use was a perfectly reasonable idea, as long as the usage fees were low enough.
;)
Imagine, you could build a vast library for free.. in fact, you wouldn't even NEED a personal library, because EVERYTHING would be available freely on the net.
Then, you pay based on what you use. So, if you listen to the latest Britney song 1000 times, you owe her some cash. And why shouldn't you?? If you listen to the song that much, obviously you're enjoying it.
If you grab a movie and only watch it once, you pay next to nothing. But if it becomes your all time favourite, and you watch it over and over again, you pay more money. It's totally fair.
I know a lot of people would be opposed to this, because they want to pay a flat OWNERSHIP fee, and get infinite usage. But in the Internet connected world, where anything digitizable can be copied infinitely for near zero cost, I posit that the concept of ownership is obsolete. We have the capacity for everyone to own everything, in other words, and just pay for what they actually use.
Speaking for myself, I have a library of hundreds of DVDs, which has cost thousands of dollars to build. If instead of purchasing copies, I could watch ANY movie I wanted for say, 50 cents, I imagine I would have seen a lot more movies, for a lot cheaper, than I would've by purchasing a personal library. And the number of times I've seen Aliens could probably fund Cameron's retirement.
Now of course, I'm not saying converting to such a system would be easy, or even possible right now. It would require universal, mandatory ID3 tags or equivalent, a ubiquitous micropayment infrastructure, and global co-operation of everyone who designs media playback mechanisms.
"something capable of posting Beowulf jokes"
;)
"Jokes", eh? Curious. The use of the plural traditionally indicates multiple discernible items.
Perhaps you meant, "something capable of posting the Beowulf joke"?
This is the worst case of false advertising I've seen since my lawsuit against The Neverending Story!
</Lionel Hutz>
Aaarrr... 'tis not a man, but an infernal eating machine!
Morrowind
Thanks, that was well put. Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary proof, this is a classic skeptic trick... exactly the same as the "fake moon landers"... landing on the moon is an "extraordinary claim", thus we need extraordinary evidence... the testimony of people who were there is no longer good enough, neither are the video records, telemetry data, physical moon samples, and so on. There will NEVER be enough evidence to convice these people... ditto the UFO skeptics.. the big difference is they're the majority (for now).
Furthermore, who is to say that extraterrestrial visitations are an extraordinary claim in the first place? That's a completely arbitrary assertion. Quite simply, nobody is in possession of any facts that indicate such a claim is extraordinary. Could be quite common for all we know. (Perhaps we are a weekly feature on an alien version of "Animal Planet"... "Crikey! We're gonna get our saucer RIGHT up close to these buggers. Uh oh.. they don't look too happy. You have to be careful with Earthlings, they can react quite irrationally when scared! Me mate who was studying Roswell a few years back vanished without a trace!")
Humour aside, the point is that all evidence should be examined with the same respect and standards (and healthy skepticism.. there are plenty of hoaxes out there), not ignored or twisted because the conclusion it might point to is "hard to believe".
What they described at Rendlesham CANNOT BE ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED. It's as simple as that. Therefore the only argument is to claim they're not credible sources, and their descriptions are innaccurate. This is an argument that assumes the conclusion before the argument.
First of all, seriously, thanks for taking the time to reply. It's nice to have a thought provoking, rational discussion about UFOs in a UFO thread instead of, say, making predictable, worn-out jokes about the Royal Family and such. :)
;)
"This is true when observations are taken under carefully controlled conditions"
So, we can conveniently disregard ALL UFO sightings until one occurs in a laboratory? This is the essence of that "logical trickery" article I posted. Nothing is good enough for the UFO disbelievers, they always raise the bar for what is acceptable and believable when any new evidence rolls in.
"However, chance eyewitness accounts of *anything*..."
This isn't a chance eyewitness account, like a single bystander witnessing a car crash, and asked to recall his memory later. This is several people investigating something, and RECORDING their impressions AS they see them.
"Silouette of trees obstructing the light would do this [create a metallic appearance] quite nicely. [...] I can believe that the blue colour was an illusion"
Pure speculation deliberately concocted to make the observational evidence match better with the proposed hypothesis. Sorry.
"I have no explanation offered for why the pulsing light was described as red."
Oh.. I thought the lighthouse light WAS red, but you're quite right, it doesn't say that anywhere. Thanks for strengthening my argument
"A meteor as bright as the full moon had passed overhead a few minutes ago."
The meteor timing doesn't make any sense to me. Your article mentions the meteor passed around 3am. Halt mentions in the transcript it is 1:48am when he notes the animal noises. Wasn't the meteor supposed to be verified as what they saw in the first place? How can this be if it happened later? Either way, there is nothing to support that the meteor passed WHEN the animals started acting up, and I don't believe the animals would collectively just wait a while before reacting.
It doesn't explain how the object vanished and was spotted again "an hour later near the back gate."
Obstructed by trees as the observers moved would be my first guess. Other explanations doubtless exist.
They were LOOKING for it. I'm sorry but I can't see them losing such a bright light behind some trees for an hour, and it suddenly reappearing. They said it lit the whole forest. Passing in front of a tree isn't going to suddenly make it impossible to find again.
I wouldn't presume to argue the finer points of radioactivity with you, I'll take your word on the tree thing... however, I notice you ONLY mentioned the tree. What about the readings which peaked in the ground depressions?
You left out the part about the "red sun-like light" that pulsed and gave off the glowing particles observation being through trees, which means it could have been just about anything. Best guess: one or more people with flashlights checking out the site. A red pulsing light sounds more like a campfire, but wouldn't move.
I left out the part about the red light cuz I thought that was easily explained by the lighthouse, sorry. People waving flashlights about in the woods do not appear to be red, blue, green lights in the sky moving rapidly with angular movements, or elliptical objects in the sky (under a 8-12x zoom, too), or an object in the sky that shines down a beam of light once in a while. And campfires do not pulse, they flicker. Pulse is a word used to describe something with a regular beat. You could argue they might've used poor word choice, but again, that would be twisting the observational evidence to fit better with the hypothesis.
Extraterrestrial life could visit the Earth without there being some big conspiracy, you know. In fact any reasonable, open-minded mathematical analysis actually predicts it. The fact that we should, but haven't seen any aliens yet is known as Fermi's Paradox.
The people who refuse to acknowledge facts and evidence are actually on YOUR side. Please read this. It covers all the reasons why scientists have stubbornly refused to admit there is an enormous body of verified (ie, visual reports which match radar evidence) observational evidence to suggest that we have been visited by craft that are 1) physically solid, 2) under intelligent control, and 3) in possession of propulsion technology far beyond human understanding.
I particularly like this piece:
No offense, but I think you "aliens are impossible" types are as close minded as the "flat earthers" and "fake moon landing" types.. no matter what volume of evidence you are shown, it's never good enough. The only difference between you and "conspiracy nuts" is that you have the backing of a bunch of scientists who don't want to admit how stubborn and blind they've been.
They're not British, they're United States Air Force. The summary report starts out with "1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300L),two USAF security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outside the back gate at RAF Woodbridge.", and the "Halt" in question is "CHARLES I. HALT, Lt Col, USAF" as noted at the bottom of the transcript.
Here is a very logical and well written essay on UFO skepticism. In particular, I would like to direct your attention to the section entitled, "Occam's Razor and the Skeptics", roughly two thirds of the way down. I shall quote it here:
Do you see what I'm getting at? The lighthouse hypothesis could explain a light appearing to move in the forest, but it doesn't explain how they observed what they described "as being metallic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high." It doesn't explain how it could have "bank(s) of blue lights underneath". It doesn't attempt to explain why "the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy." It doesn't explain how the object vanished and was spotted again "an hour later near the back gate."
It can account for the presence of radiation, the depressions on the ground, and the tree markings, but it can't explain the relationship... ie WHY they recorded a "peak reading in the three depressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions." Is it just a coincidence that the radiation levels from cosmic rays and whatnot are measurably strongest in the depressions and centre of the 'landing zone', and the side of the tree facing it? Perhaps. Unlikely though.
It doesn't explain how "At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then disappeared." It doesn't explain how "three star-like objects were noticed in the sky. Two objects to the north and one to the south [which] moved rapidly in sharp angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lights.", or "The objects to the north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then turned to full circles.", or "The object to the south was visible for two or three hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time." (Yes I know it mentions these last observations. Saying the above is "probably" just stars is NOT an adequate scientific explanation for these very specific and detailed observations corroborated by multiple eye witnesses)
So, in conclusion, the lighthouse hypothesis attempts to 'mutilate and butcher the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses'. This is NOT the Scientific Method.
Have you read this transcript and report? This is a military report, drawn from multiple eye witnesses, and includes scientific measurements of depressions, abrasions, and radiation levels.. this is not some hick in a trailer park trying for 15 minutes of fame.
... But, I think this is pretty damn interesting.
Furthermore, I think it's a bit dismissive in this case to call it "just some object in the air", like it could be a weather balloon or swamp gas or something. This is an object that moves and behaves like no known terrestrial phenomenon.
What do you think it could be? Ball lightning? Its movements seem too deliberate. Secret American or Russian aircraft with magnetic/gravitic propulsion and stealth tech? About as hard to swallow as aliens.
I'm not saying OMG! Aliens!
Yeah, but look what happened when the music industry started tracking every single record sale. All of a sudden they realized Hip Hop sold like mad, and now it's everywhere.
Polling everyone is only going to confirm that most people like lowbrow garbage. Most people are morons, so we will continue to be shovelled cheap, instant gratification drivel.
Whoah! Did you just call Babylon 5 "repeat-o-crap" and liken it to the works of Roddenberry?
Babylon is ANYTHING but repetitive or derivative. It is quite simply the most epic science fiction saga every told on any type of screen. The series is structured like a novel, with each season in turn representing Introduction, Rising Action, Climax, Complications, Denouement. This is pretty much unique in American television, although B5's influence is starting to show up in other shows. Characters grow, love, laugh, hate, change, and die. Vast empires rise, clash, and fall. Conspiracies within conspiracies. Order versus chaos. Wars of aggression, idealogy, and liberation. Entire planets and civilizations burn. And every single episode ties into other episodes.. it's all interwoven so beautifully with a depth of foresight I've never, ever, seen before. Most episodes not only benefit from, but DEMAND repeat viewings to get everything from them. It also pioneered the regular use of CGI on a TV show, and was scientifically accurate enough for NASA to show a continuing interest. (Rotational gravity, realistic space flight physics, etc)
Now, I will agree that, strictly comparing FIRST SEASONS ONLY, Firefly has better character development and acting than B5. But overall storyline? Babylon is king. No contest. I have yet to meet ANYONE who has seen B5 in its entirety and claims another sci-fi show is better.
Do yourself a favour. Wait until Babylon 5 second season is out on DVD (should be early 2003). Borrow or rent the first two seasons. From season 1, watch "Signs and Portents", and "Chrysalis". Skip the rest of season 1 for now (go back once you're hooked to fill in the details), and then just start watching all of season 2, it's amazing once it gets going. And seasons 3 & 4 are even better. 5 is a BIT of a drop from the highs of 3 & 4, but it's still good stuff. And the series finale will leave you a tearful, emotional wreck... it's one of the bravest, most powerfully moving endings I've ever seen.
You DON'T know what you're missing.
Well thanks for the link, but I don't buy that even slightly. You're trying to support a claim that a 100 pound man, with scrap steel from a nearby junkyard, was able to build some magical device which was capable of moving rocks up to 30 tonnes around?
The fact is, nobody, including modern engineers, have the slightest clue how he was able to manipulate such enormous loads at all, much less with the astounding precision demonstrated. Did you read that link I sent? Here is an interesting excerpt:
'In 1936, when developers threatened to set up a subdivision near Florida City, Leedskalnin bought ten acres in nearby Homestead with money saved through years of performing odd jobs for neighboring farmers. He dismantled the largely finished Castle and transferred it block by block to the new location. Each piece was placed on a pair of iron girders mounted on a makeshift truck chassis and transported over ten miles to Homestead.
For this major operation, he relied on outside help for the first and last time. He hired a tractor, but insisted that its driver not be present whenever the blocks were placed on his truck. The driver showed up at 9:00 every morning, returning in late afternoon to find the chassis loaded with coral monoliths.
Once, the driver absentmindedly returned after less than half an hour for a lunchpail he had forgotten on the seat of the tractor. He was astounded to see several multi-ton stones already laid neatly on the girders. "It was impossible to have stacked those gigantic blocks in under 30 minutes," he recalled, "even with a steam-powered derrick. And Ed had no equipment, just a simple tackle and chain hoist. Yet, there they were, piled like cord wood.'
...imagine a BEOWULF cluster of these things-
oh just shoot me.
The rumours I find far more fascinating (and hard to swallow, I am the first to admit) are the ones that say Kamen is perfecting a personal levitation device.
Bob Metcalfe of 3Com stated "Some months ago when speculation was running high, I said that Kamen's It was more important than the Internet, but not as important as cold fusion, had cold fusion worked out. The It I was talking about, which I did not disclose, was NOT Segway."
Now, do you really think that he would claim a Stirling-engine powered scooter is more important than the Internet? I for one doubt that. Now if it turns out to actually be a viable form of LEVITATION.... all of a sudden the hype, hyperbole, and secrecy starts to fit...
And before you laugh and state this is ridiculous and impossible, read up on the Coral Castle and try to explain it. (Not to mention the pyramids, stonehenge, etc)
I bought my ticket to Episode 1 about 6 hours before the movie started, proceeded to laugh at everyone waiting in line, showed up with a friend 30 minutes before it started, and still managed to get a near perfect seat. Mind you, I live in Canada, so our movie theatre is big enough to hold all several dozen of us, except for the Eskimos, but they keep their igloos and polar bars pretty far from Toronto street anyway.
Potter? Decent but overrated. Unworthy of being one of the highest grossing films in history.. but then again, so are Episodes 1 & 2.
Oh, and I'll trade you a Lord of the Pit for a communicator and a good Marina Sirtis story. And my bruise deck could totally kill yours with my mana tied behind my back. NYEAH!
Excellent...
Now that's a true Hero :) And the prosecutor's office declined to press charges too! That single handedly revived my faith in the American justice system ;)
The big problem with Oni is that you progress through the game solely by finding those stupid computer monitors everywhere. It's a mindless switch hunt to end all switch hunts. Find the switch, open the door. Fight some guys. Repeat 1000 times.
Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the game for its fighting, and have taken the time to beat it... but "one of the BEST 3rd person action games?".. I dunno... it's too repetitive to earn that title, IMHO. I'd be more inclined to go with something like Tomb Raider (even though it's now VERY dated), or Max Payne, or Hitman or something. Oni IS a great fighting game though... just get sick of all that damn switch hunting.
Yes, this is from Transformers: The Movie. Since I've seen it recently, (my roommate has the DVD) I will add a bit more detail:
The Decepticons attack Autobot city and are winning. Prime comes racing in, does this cool jump over the Decepticons, taking out a whole bunch with his blaster. Him and Megatron fight up on this high platform, Prime gets shot a few times badly, Megatron charges in for the kill, but Prime flips him over the edge of the platform, causing him to fall and take serious damage. Soundwave scoops him up and the Decepticons retreat. Later, Prime dies in a medical (service?) bay, gives the Matrix to Optimus Prime. Megatron is thrown out of the Decepticon's shuttle by Starscream because they need to lighten the load. Megatron is later picked up by Unicron (huge planet eating robot, voiced by Orson Welles), and transformed into Galvatron, then he returns to the Decepticons to find Starscream being coronated as the new leader, whom he promptly blasts into a small pile of dust. The Matrix passes to Hot Rod at the end of the movie, who becomes Rhodimus Prime.