A question for UFO skeptics.

[Goggs Mackay]

Yes I think you are right and for the record, I've seen neither UAP nor UFO! One time I thought I saw a 'star' moving with respect to those around it. Not a satellite and I don't think it was refraction due to heating in the atmosphere either. Could easily have been my eyes/mind.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

that squiggly image is why i keep my sony a65 with me at all times now. even if i drive a mile away i throw my gear in the car. it would have been a heck of a shot capturing the jet and ufo going by!

I've read your account and it is pretty darn 'cool'. I do understand that taking phots is not always topmost in the minds of witnesses. If I was worried a sighting was gonna end with a UFO going out of view or something, I would want to 'drink in' every second of it. Only if a sighting was prolonged might I worry about taking good photos.

 

[pixelsmith]

I've read your account and it is pretty darn 'cool'. I do understand that taking phots is not always topmost in the minds of witnesses. If I was worried a sighting was gonna end with a UFO going out of view or something, I would want to 'drink in' every second of it. Only if a sighting was prolonged might I worry about taking good photos.

i agree but i make a living as a photographer so it is a bit embarrassing.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Love the MG and Jaguars . However, find them to low to ground man and love being up high and can't beat a 4x4 drive's.

The British Army Jackal... - Military Vehicles

 

[Trajanus]

First off, notice how Friedman assumes someone is lying. Why? Because their first hand testimony doesn't serve his purpose. There are varying estimates of the size of the debris field and Roswell believers toss out the smaller estimates even though they come from the people actually there

Like Marcel and Brazel...

and in some cases from contemporary sources. Virtually all of Friedman's reply is simply his unsupported opinion and doesn't jibe with actual 1947 testimony.

Brazel said the sheep had to be driven or lead around the debris field. Strange he'd have to do that if it was just 20 square feet.

The idea is that the balloon train lost altitude, touched ground, probably gently, and was then dragged along. The debris, not just from the balloon but also from the radar target attached, was torn off the the main train and spread by this process.

And the resulting mess covered only 20 square feet like Cavitt, the epitome of veracity, stated...Btw I recall KDR said #4 was cancelled or just balloons were released.

 

[Randall]

Although scepticism is healthy in the field of ufology, it sometimes seems to me that skeptic/debunker types pick and choose their cases to debunk as carefully as some ufologists steer clear of certain cases. I am interested to hear if there are any mundane explanations for cases like the Japan Airlines Alaska case or the English Channel case with Captain Ray Bowyer. I have not heard any alternative explanations for these cases and I would like to hear from anyone who considers themselves as someone who thinks there is so far no evidence for non-human made UFOs.

Skeptics and debunkers fill a valuable role in shedding light on questionable cases, but the extremists on both sides don't seem to recognize that any legitimate middle ground exists. For example, the Raelians don't think mainstream ufology is any more valid than the rabid skeptics do. Ironically, on the other end of the spectrum, the I've seen skeptics who find raelism more valid than ufology. Logically, this seems to mean that for those skeptic's, science is legitimate, UFO religions are less legitimate, and serious ufology is off the scale nutbar. Those of us in the middle have a hard time wrapping our heads around that kind of thinking. For us, anyone who finds UFO religions more rational than mainstream ufology must be even more wacko than UFO religions are, yet they ( those select skepics ) believe they are being perfectly rational. How do we reconcile this while maintaining any kind of sanity? Is it even possible to bridge a divide in worldviews that is so wide? Even more moderate skeptics tend to come across as aloof and prone to simply hand waving or ignoring discourse that challenges their position. That's probably why we still haven't had any in-depth response from any of them to the initial question posed by this thread ( above ).

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Yes, I think there are cases skeptics avoid like the plague - lest they find something out that is truly unexplainable in mundane terms.

 

[Trajanus]

Yes, I think there are cases skeptics avoid like the plague - lest they find something out that is truly unexplainable in mundane terms.

Skeptics have attacked just about all cases. As was noted on this board previously, all cases have some problems or, no case by itself can clinch the case for a real phenomenon. (That is no case known to laymen.)
Also, there are cases many believers avoid--those with "high strangeness" such as weird apparitions, and contactee cases.

 

[trainedobserver]

For example, the Raelians don't think mainstream ufology is any more valid than the rabid skeptics do. Ironically, on the other end of the spectrum, the I've seen skeptics who find raelism more valid than ufology.

Really? Who are you talking about?

 

[pixelsmith]

i do not recall making that statement.

 

[trainedobserver]

i do not recall making that statement.

That was strange. It was ufology who said that. Sorry.

 

[Randall]

Really? Who are you talking about?

I've been through it over on the JREF more than once. During a debate I was defending ufology against improperly labeling it as a pseudoscience and pointed out that an example of pseudoscience within a field does not make the whole field a pseudoscience. It is nothing more than a historical or cultural facet of a much wider set of topics that together make up ufology. One of the examples I used of pseudoscience within ufology was the Raëlians because of the way they promote their UFO religion using science. I differentiated that from mainstream conservative ufology ( which they think is completely illegitimate ) in an effort to make them see the relative difference between the two. The response was, to paraphrase: "What do you mean, the Raëlians are a recognized religion with a charismatic leader and everything." Naturally this sentiment was echoed by the rest of skeptics, obviously in an effort to make make ufology seem even less credible.

 

[Digital Trickster]

I was born in Ipswich and went to school on the base and walked those woods about a hundred times and have been on the road countless other times and there is no way he would have thought that lighthouse to be a strange craft.Anyone who lived or worked in that area knew and saw the lighthouse all the time this theory in my opinion is BS.

 

[exo_doc]

lancemoody said: ↑

I'll bet you can't specifically point to this super compelling evidence.​

​

Lance​

Lance, how about this one for compelling evidence?

UFO Hard Evidence - The Bob White Experience



I'm still waiting for your analysis on this Lance.

 

[Randall]

lancemoody said: ↑

I'll bet you can't specifically point to this super compelling evidence.​

​

Lance​

Lance, how about this one for compelling evidence?

UFO Hard Evidence - The Bob White Experience

I'm still waiting for your analysis on this Lance.

Sorry to crash the party, but the Bob White artifact is most likely a byproduct of an industrial grinding process.

"The object in question is made of accreted grinding residue. It forms in a manner similar to a common stalagmite when metal castings are “cleaned” on large stationary grinders. Rough castings need to have the parting line fins and gates smoothed to facilitate machining and reduce tool breakage. A typical stationary grinder in a foundry cleaning room used to hand clean castings up to 40 pounds may have a composite wheel 3 feet in diameter and 4 inches wide or larger."

Skeptic » eSkeptic » Wednesday, October 12th, 2011

Of course there is other evidence, just not the kind these so-called skeptics acknowledge as evidence. For example, certain aspects of the 1952 D.C. sightings have never been satisfactorily debunked, in particular the RADAR/Visual sighting by the F94 pilot who after being vectored toward the unknown targets was surrounded by UFOs There is little question that the event occurred, but skeptics refuse to acknowledge that it ever happened.

 

[exo_doc]

Sorry to crash the party, but the Bob White artifact is most likely a byproduct of an industrial grinding process.

"The object in question is made of accreted grinding residue. It forms in a manner similar to a common stalagmite when metal castings are “cleaned” on large stationary grinders. Rough castings need to have the parting line fins and gates smoothed to facilitate machining and reduce tool breakage. A typical stationary grinder in a foundry cleaning room used to hand clean castings up to 40 pounds may have a composite wheel 3 feet in diameter and 4 inches wide or larger."

Skeptic » eSkeptic » Wednesday, October 12th, 2011

No crash all you want. This is an open discussion for anyone.
So it's been proven to be a human artifact then?

Not a "most likely" or "it could be". It's definantly human made with earthly materials?
.
.
.

 

[Randall]

No crash all you want. This is an open discussion for anyone.
So it's been proven to be a human artifact then?

Not a "most likely" or "it could be". It's definantly human made with earthly materials?
.
.
.

I tend to state my opinions in terms of probabilities rather than certainties because apart from pure logic, very few things in life are certain. Given the information I've posted, is there some reason you still think that it would be more reasonable to believe the Bob White artifact is actually alien?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Oh no - absolutely not. I am just more cautious these days over any explanation of UFO/paranormal stuff.
What I mean exactly is that just cos someone comes along and says they can explain situation X, that does not always mean the explanation is valid. This could be because of poor science or reasoning or deliberate attempts to debunk by whatever means necessary. I've read some explanations of UFO cases that are laughable, though we are supposed to swallow them!

As for Bob's 'artefact' I would not know one way or the other -I understand your point about probabilities over certainties. I was interested to know how strong the evidence for it being mundane is? I am not hoping for an answer either way although I would be very interested to find out if this is another long-standing hoax with everything out of Bob's mouth on the subject being B.S. I liked the story when I heard of it and it can be annoying hearing of yet another fake!

Of course there could be a 3rd option: that the object came about in the way reported and even if the object was from some flying object, that object could have been man-made or ET-made but using earthly materials, if you get my meaning. These days I find it hard sometimes to decide about certain cases cos I have seen examples of both 'believer' bunk and 'skeptical' bunk - bunk is everywhere, watch out below!

 

[exo_doc]

I tend to state my opinions in terms of probabilities rather than certainties because apart from pure logic, very few things in life are certain. Given the information I've posted, is there some reason you still think that it would be more reasonable to believe the Bob White artifact is actually alien?

It was a good post, but I still have no reason to think one way or the other. So it resembles accreted grindings, does that mean it is?
I'm not trying to be an ass here or anything, but with such a case, specifics need to be addressed.
Have there been any isotope tests to determine if the material(s) were terrestrial? Those results would make me lean one way or another I think. I don't think I've ever seen any results, or even if it's been tested.

 

[Randall]

It was a good post, but I still have no reason to think one way or the other. So it resembles accreted grindings, does that mean it is?
I'm not trying to be an ass here or anything, but with such a case, specifics need to be addressed.
Have there been any isotope tests to determine if the material(s) were terrestrial? Those results would make me lean one way or another I think. I don't think I've ever seen any results, or even if it's been tested.

I don't recall if the article I posted has the results of the metallurgy test, but I do recall reading someplace that a test was done and it determined that the object was composed of known elements, but that the distribution and ratios did not match any known alloy. This makes sense because the grinders were used on several different materials over a long period of time. As the stalagmites slowly built up, it would be normal to accumulate odd concentrations of elements that don't correspond to the ratios of any single alloy. I agree this doesn't prove the object isn't alien, but in my view it's a more reasonable explanation. For us to believe otherwise requires more than a "you can't prove it's not alien" approach.

As mentioned before, very few things in life apart from pure logic are 100% certain, so it isn't reasonable to take a hard line approach that all issues must be proven with absolute certainty one way or the other. We can't even prove with absolute certainty that our material universe is real, let alone every single item in it. To demand that we do so is moving the goalposts way out of bounds and that is a typical tactic of the rabid skeptics. For us to do the same would make us no better. We need to realize when it is appropriate to admit that the scales are tipped one way or the other in favor of a particular explanation. If something comes along to tip the scales back the other way later, fine, but I've seen no such evidence for this particular case. If anything comes along, by all means post it up.