A Troubling Observation About UFO Reality

[Jeff Davis]

Isn't that exactly what we see, though?

A bunch of morphologically varied reports?

Nowhere did I claim 'humanoids' or anything of that nature.

What morphological consideration are you referring to if not for the variances of humanoids?

The real issue is an even more important one that you have thus far entirely failed to recognize and that's what honestly frustrates those of us like myself that would like to see the genuine scientific method applied to the actual reported data that we do in fact have to work with. Data that does not lend itself to the realm of maybe and might when we do in fact take the witness's statements at face value with respect to the veracity of their reporting. The ETH is NOT science or scientific, it is utter pseudoscience and has been amply proved to be as much a thousand times over. Why would you flog a dead log. Stop flogging that log! Bad Marduk!![/QUOTE]

 

[marduk]

Bullshirt! What the heck is the scientific method based on if not science?

Lol. You're arguing with the scientific method now?

*Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world (as opposed to imaginary worlds that aliens MIGHT be living on) through observation and experiment.

There have been over 1700 planets discovered in the few years we've had the technology to look for them.

So they're there.

We see life here. So, ergo, there might be life there.

This is science. How you 'do' this part of science is you go look for life there. Probes, big telescopes, whatever.

And this fits pretty neatly into the realm of math. If we've found a bunch already, there's probably a bunch there. If there's life here, there's probably life there somewhere. If life got smart here, it probably got smart somewhere else, too.

The funny thing about a Gaussian distribution is, like it or lump it, you're probably average-ish. So humans are probably average-ish. So are most of the life we'd probably discover.

*This is the CONTEXT that you are leaving out in order to dodge the fact that what you are proposing cannot be definitively recognized as a scientific hypothesis, and without that context, it's NOT the scientific method apart to start with from pseudoscience.

Huh?

a) there's no need to set the context because the context is the natural universe.

b) well, what I said above, I'm just saying it again for emphasis.

Here is the way your definition of the scientific method reads when it is qualified by what is science as it's basic and most underlining premise on which to develop and base a scientific hypothesis.

a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation of the physical and natural world, measurement of the physical and natural world , and experiment with the physical and natural world , and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses relating to the physical and natural world.

I claimed: and was wrong/flawed because:
1. We see other stars that are like our sun. Factual

I'm with you so far.

2. There might be planets there where intelligent life evolved in a similar fashion as we did.
Nonfactual, therefore a non evidential sopposition on which we cannot base a legitimate scientific hypothesis, therefore this statement is speculation

It's a hypothesis. A nice, solid, rational, reasonable one... that is testable. By either going there and looking, or developing imaging systems that can do it from here.

3. They might have the technology to visit us before we have the technology to visit them.
Nonfactual, therefore a non evidential sopposition on which we cannot base a legitimate scientific hypothesis, therefore this statement is speculation

It's a hypothesis. Again, a nice, solid, rational, reasonable one... given we've already done it here on earth.

And again, it's testable. We go there and look, and poke one of them with a stick.

#1 starts out with a fact, and from there 2 & 3 quickly degrade into what is the realm of the imaginary based on maybes and mights. Maybe/Might = Non Quantifiable Scientific Premise.

The scientific method only works because you generate reasonable, testable hypotheses... and then go test them to see if they work.

Is your hypothesis that we are alone in the universe?

If so, what do you base it on and how would you test that?

 

[marduk]

What morphological consideration are you referring to if not for the variances of humanoids?

The real issue is an even more important one that you have thus far entirely failed to recognize and that's what honestly frustrates those of us like myself that would like to see the genuine scientific method applied to the actual reported data that we do in fact have to work with. Data that does not lend itself to the realm of maybe and might when we do in fact take the witness's statements at face value with respect to the veracity of their reporting. The ETH is NOT science or scientific, it is utter pseudoscience and has been amply proved to be as much a thousand times over. Why would you flog a dead log. Stop flogging that log! Bad Marduk!!

[/QUOTE]

What you said was something to the effect of 'if the universe was filled with intelligent life we'd see all different kinds of aliens here.'

Morphological = "Morphology is a branch of biology dealing with the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features."

It does not imply humanoid in appearance or function. Although I do admit, what people report seem to be kinda star-trekish in a bias to humanoids.

And what I said was 'we get reports of all different kinds of aliens here so doesn't that kinda support that theory?

 

[Randall]

... Nonfactual, therefore a non evidential sopposition on which we cannot base a legitimate scientific hypothesis ...

Here's a refresher on terminology. Remember there's a difference between scientific terms and the same terms in everyday language. Is the ETH a scientific hypothesis or an everyday term? I think a case can be made that it's more an everyday term than a scientific hypothesis. Does that mean it has no value? No. It's still useful in discussion. Might it fit the definition of a scientific hypothesis? A rather contentious case can be made that it does. But what's the point of arguing it? All we need to know for the sake of discussion is that the ETH is one possibility for the place of origin of the alien craft we commonly call UFOs or flying saucers.

Fact, Theory, Hypothesis, Law

 

[Burnt State]

Burnt, I’ve found your sighting really interesting, particularly your experience a few months after the UFO sighting of finding burn marks in the shape of the UFO on the roof of the garage above which the UFO was hovering. A location on the garage roof that could not be seen from the ground. Re-reading your December 2013 description of your sighting, it seems your views have changed. Back then it seemed you accepted the visual appearance of the UFOs as you perceived them, and as you drew them as a child. From your current comments it appears you question your perception of the UFOs. I’m curious, what are your current thoughts on the arc of burn marks which appeared to coincide with the shape of the UFO you perceived?

I believe that even at the time I posted my sighting details i was questioning the truth of what I saw. Yes, they looked like flying saucers but I was busy thinking along the lines, at the time of the posting, that the ability for an advanced species to appear as they wish inside our minds was the explanation for all the diversity of ships seen. Already Greg Bushop's ideas of co-creation were developing in my head and since contacting him and exploring other avenues related to how we see I have a very different way of thinking about what I saw.

Currently the concept of how the external stimulus and a witness interact with each other to create what gets experienced and then reported I see very much as a co-creative event that probably has much more to do with what's inside the minds of the witness than anything else. What the stimulus is I have no idea, but it appears to be something that is most often processed through the cultural mimetic collective as alien technology in our skies.

As for the burnt garage I believe on Radio Misterioso I described this as something that appears as a confirmation event, but is also part of a troubling issue regarding UFO case reports: how discontinuous evidence becomes quickly manufactured into a continuous narrative. So while the burnt tree and radial arc of burnt shingles seen months later appears to be evidence confirmation I can not verify it nor can I truly count it as a continuous evidence chain. It could have been lightning or the ufo - i don't know the facts. I think a lot of broken tree branches and fairy rings in forests are given the same mistaken weight of evidence. We tend to string together clues looking for the narrative of a structured craft touching down and I don't think the clues we string together are as weighty as we'd like - just like our detailed discussion about Robert Taylor attacked by sea mines in the Dechmont Woods as the cloaked ship hovered nearby. I believe it also had strange propellers on its edges or rotating components - hilarious, what the mind might see under duress.

As someone immensely curious about what the ufo stimulus is i have to take apart my own case in as mch detail as I can. And I have to use what I've learned about seeing and about the paranormal experience in general to tease it apart as much as possible. So I'm doubtful about things. I prefer that position over believerdom.

What I saw sticks in the mind to this day and it was a very powerful personal event but I can only say this is what it looked like - aliens from outer space in flying saucers returning to the stars after a quick visit - but I can't say what it actually was. I continue to investigate different avenues...and if I can't question myself then who else should I question.

 

[Randall]

I believe that even at the time I posted my sighting details i was questioning the truth of what I saw. Yes, they looked like flying saucers but I was busy thinking along the lines, at the time of the posting, that the ability for an advanced species to appear as they wish inside our minds was the explanation ... What I saw sticks in the mind to this day and it was a very powerful personal event but I can only say this is what it looked like - aliens from outer space in flying saucers - but I can't say what it actually was. I continue to investigate different avenues...and if I can't question myself then who else should I question.

So you've narrowed the possibilities down to:

1. Alien craft.
2. An illusion of alien craft put into your mind by an alien intelligence.
3. Something else ( insert other possibilities as applicable ).

Any other possibilities?

 

[Jeff Davis]

Here's a refresher on terminology. Remember there's a difference between scientific terms and the same terms in everyday language. Is the ETH a scientific hypothesis or an everyday term? I think a case can be made that it's more an everyday term than a scientific hypothesis. Does that mean it has no value? No. It's still useful in discussion. Might it fit the definition of a scientific hypothesis? A rather contentious case can be made that it does. But what's the point of arguing it? All we need to know for the sake of discussion is that the ETH is one possibility for the place of origin of the alien craft we commonly call UFOs or flying saucers.

Fact, Theory, Hypothesis, Law

LOL! Well at very least we managed to clear up the fact that the ETH, while certainly being more than possible, is NOT a real or legitimate scientific hypothesis by definition. And yes I in fact agree wholeheartedly, that it is a most useful term while discussing matters of a UFO nature.

 

[marduk]

LOL! Well at very least we managed to clear up the fact that the ETH, while certainly being more than possible, is NOT a real or legitimate scientific hypothesis by definition. And yes I in fact agree wholeheartedly, that it is a most useful term while discussing matters of a UFO nature.

Yes it is.

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

Hypothesis - Wikipedia

You can test the ETH many ways. Here's a simple but inconvenient way: go explore the neighbourhood.

 

[Jeff Davis]

What you said was something to the effect of 'if the universe was filled with intelligent life we'd see all different kinds of aliens here.'

Morphological = "Morphology is a branch of biology dealing with the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features."

It does not imply humanoid in appearance or function. Although I do admit, what people report seem to be kinda star-trekish in a bias to humanoids.

And what I said was 'we get reports of all different kinds of aliens here so doesn't that kinda support that theory?

No, that's not what I stated and I do apologize if you misunderstood me due to me not stating it more so clearly. I stated that because a scientific hypothesis uses existent facts from the natural world in order that they be assembled into a questionable claim or proposition, by which the scientific process can yield scientific results with regard to a given unknown, all aliens arriving here on Earth would have to be just like us. We wouldn't have the myriad of nearly endless alien variety that come with an objective study of alien encounters.

I do not doubt that there is in fact alien craft, however I also do not claim that we know there is, because we don't. I do not doubt that the universe contains intelligent life apart from our own human species, however I do not claim that there is, because we don't know as of yet that there is. I propose that we use the scientific method to work with what we have, namely the most scientifically valuable evidence we have, the witness, and the raw data that we collect as a result of their reporting.

I know exactly what Morphology is as I was into fish (ichthyology) on a very real level for many years. The reason I thought you were referencing humanoids with your use of the term was because that's the only reason I could understand you would be using the term as a biological reference. ie. a play on human species of many a form, or as the fantastical/nonfactual case for genetically engineered hybridization, or planetary environment specifics of the centric human genome resulting in humanoids.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I doubt that accounts for all crop circles, especially the highly intricate ones, worldwide. As for Trent, your own sources indicate he'd have had to do more than just use a fishing line with some object. He would've had to photograph it in a certain way to give the effect of a large distant object (and presumably, also effectively hide the putative "fishing line"). Investigators certainly didn't get the impression he was bright enough for that. But what if he really WAS bright and skilled? As I pointed out before, no hoaxer would've photographed a model just below wires. He would've put it somewhere so that it appeared in the sky with nothing above--maybe have his wife toss it. Or, at least, photograph it so wires (or whatever) above don't show.

It's irrelevant if ALL crop circles were made this way. The point is; these two guys made super intricate ones with a plank of wood with rope attached - and fooled MANY so called "experts".

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I'm by no means an image expert, but I have had to the opportunity to shoot photos with a number of various cameras over the years, including the Kodak Brownie that my mom's family had when she was a kid. All of the cameras I've used from the Brownie, a 110, a 35mm film, early digital cameras, my smart phone, and very nice Nikon SLR digital, is that they make relatively large and close objects appear further away in the camera viewfinder and subsequent image whether it be film or a digital file. I don't see this relativity at work in the Mcminnville photographs. which makes me inclined to believe that they are fakes.

BTW - not that this means much, but I was an inflight photographer for 5 years in the U.S. Navy onboard Lockheed P-3C Orion's - antisubmarine warfare aircraft. I logged over 2000 hours. I was also the inflight ordnanceman (which means I'd load the planes with sonobuoys, bombs, rockets, mines, flares, nuclear depth bombs, torpedo's, Harpoon & Maverick missiles, etc.)

My main camera was an Agiflite camera (70mm) which came with two lenses for me to use - 150mm & 350mm. My backup camera was a 35mm. So I have some experience under my belt as far as taking pictures, etc.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Forgot the picture of the plane I used to fly in;

 

[Randall]

... I do not doubt that there is in fact alien craft, however I also do not claim that we know there is, because we don't ...

That all depends on who you mean by "we". Maybe you don't know. Maybe someone else does. Maybe nobody really "knows" if anything exists the way we think it does. The point is that for some people, the existence of alien craft exist is as reasonable to believe as many other things. So the whole question relies on what a person considers reasonable. In that regard there are different playing fields with different goal posts. From a hard scientific perspective there's insufficient evidence to determine what UFOs are and where they come from, but that doesn't equate to the scientific conclusion that alien craft don't exist or that nobody has seen one. Even Sagan believed they were worth further investigation.

 

[Red]

Forgot the picture of the plane I used to fly in;

Actually that sounds kind of fun for a military career, although at 2000 hours, I could see it get a bit monotonous The other thing that troubles me about McMinnville is the camera itself. Chances are he was probably using a low speed film, but he's captured pretty sharp edges on the object itself. I know the Brownie I used was pretty particular, you couldn't really take pictures of anything moving because you'd just get blur. It was only really useful outside in calm conditions, we didn't have a flash for it. There was no way to adjust the aperture or shutter speed. If this was a similar camera, I would expect more blur with a moving object, even a slow moving one. I actually have some box cameras I could go play with if I felt so inclined, perhaps when things slow down a bit.

 

[Celeste]

So I have a concern. I'm not a particularly scientific person. I know what the scientific method is and why it's important and I'm college educated, so I'm not an idiot. But I guess I am one of 'those' type of people who have an open mind to possibilities. I assume that there are many things that are beyond our level of understanding and current place in our evolution. So I would not rule out alien intervention. I don't assume that it's a fact because I just don't know. At any rate, I've been listening to the podcasts and reading the threads there and it seems a little heavy on the debunking. I suppose I could quote Fox Mulder and just say, "I want to believe." When I listen to the podcasts I hear a lot of, "We don't discuss Roswell." I hope that is because there just isn't much new on that front and most of those involved are passed on now instead of just debunking it as a fabrication. When I hear people claiming personal visitations with aliens, my s-detector kicks into gear, but as I said, I would like to believe. And now we are hearing all the stuff about secret space programs going way back to the 40s. Judging from the massive amount of money that seems to be getting lost somewhere, I assume it is being dumped into 'black budget' projects, which could account for the astronomical sums that are swallowed up somewhere. I just wanted to clarify if this is more of a doubt/debunk site. Since it's pretty much all UFOs, I didn't think that was the direction, but I haven't been listening all that long. Anyway, I enjoy the site, regardless.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Actually that sounds kind of fun for a military career, although at 2000 hours, I could see it get a bit monotonous The other thing that troubles me about McMinnville is the camera itself. Chances are he was probably using a low speed film, but he's captured pretty sharp edges on the object itself. I know the Brownie I used was pretty particular, you couldn't really take pictures of anything moving because you'd just get blur. It was only really useful outside in calm conditions, we didn't have a flash for it. There was no way to adjust the aperture or shutter speed. If this was a similar camera, I would expect more blur with a moving object, even a slow moving one. I actually have some box cameras I could go play with if I felt so inclined, perhaps when things slow down a bit.

It was great. P-3's are too big to land on ships, so they are only land based. My only options at the time of where to be home based at were; Hawaii, California, Florida or Maine. I chose Maine and received it. From there I went to Sicily, Puerto Rico, Honduras, Panama, Cuba, Iceland, Antigua, Turkey, Saudi Arabia & some other places. In the P-3C, we used to fly from Maine to Sicily in one shot without refueling (you turn off, or "loiter" one of the engines to save fuel during the transit.) But you cant make it back from Sicily to Maine without refueling because of the jet stream.

And regarding McMinnville; it's a truck mirror. If anybody denies that fact - they're just stubborn, hard headed & embarrassed that they got fooled by a derelict farmer.

 

[Red]

So I have a concern. I'm not a particularly scientific person. I know what the scientific method is and why it's important and I'm college educated, so I'm not an idiot. But I guess I am one of 'those' type of people who have an open mind to possibilities. I assume that there are many things that are beyond our level of understanding and current place in our evolution. So I would not rule out alien intervention. I don't assume that it's a fact because I just don't know. At any rate, I've been listening to the podcasts and reading the threads there and it seems a little heavy on the debunking. I suppose I could quote Fox Mulder and just say, "I want to believe." When I listen to the podcasts I hear a lot of, "We don't discuss Roswell." I hope that is because there just isn't much new on that front and most of those involved are passed on now instead of just debunking it as a fabrication. When I hear people claiming personal visitations with aliens, my s-detector kicks into gear, but as I said, I would like to believe. And now we are hearing all the stuff about secret space programs going way back to the 40s. Judging from the massive amount of money that seems to be getting lost somewhere, I assume it is being dumped into 'black budget' projects, which could account for the astronomical sums that are swallowed up somewhere. I just wanted to clarify if this is more of a doubt/debunk site. Since it's pretty much all UFOs, I didn't think that was the direction, but I haven't been listening all that long. Anyway, I enjoy the site, regardless.

Celeste, I tend to enjoy ufology more for the sociological/folkloric aspects. I like the stories and the intereactions that people have on these kinds of forums and all of the hypothetical scenarios that people come up with. I also a enjoy a good debunking now and again, too.

Gene and Chris do try to seperate the signal from the noise, they are a bit more discriminating in the kind of information they present, and that is why I listen to them and not C2C, at least, not often.

Not everyone in this field is truthful and there are lot of starry-eyed believers who have bought into the most outrageous things. It's not that we are trying to debunk every thing, but there has been a lot of fabrication and disinformation put out there, anyone whose had a longterm interest in these topics are aware of that. And there have been a couple of hucksters, too.

I think what's most important is even though this thread has often got heated, it's remained mostly civil and most members here aren't looking to only prove their point of view, but also gain a better understanding of others' points of view. Otherwise this thread wouldn't have lasted this long.

 

[marduk]

So I have a concern. I'm not a particularly scientific person. I know what the scientific method is and why it's important and I'm college educated, so I'm not an idiot. But I guess I am one of 'those' type of people who have an open mind to possibilities. I assume that there are many things that are beyond our level of understanding and current place in our evolution. So I would not rule out alien intervention. I don't assume that it's a fact because I just don't know. At any rate, I've been listening to the podcasts and reading the threads there and it seems a little heavy on the debunking. I suppose I could quote Fox Mulder and just say, "I want to believe." When I listen to the podcasts I hear a lot of, "We don't discuss Roswell." I hope that is because there just isn't much new on that front and most of those involved are passed on now instead of just debunking it as a fabrication. When I hear people claiming personal visitations with aliens, my s-detector kicks into gear, but as I said, I would like to believe. And now we are hearing all the stuff about secret space programs going way back to the 40s. Judging from the massive amount of money that seems to be getting lost somewhere, I assume it is being dumped into 'black budget' projects, which could account for the astronomical sums that are swallowed up somewhere. I just wanted to clarify if this is more of a doubt/debunk site. Since it's pretty much all UFOs, I didn't think that was the direction, but I haven't been listening all that long. Anyway, I enjoy the site, regardless.

I'm down with that. I don't think you should be too fussed, except that there's a cadre of of passionate folks in, on, and around this show that have a pretty low tolerance for BS.

Get what you want out of it; if it's seeking a sense of wonder about the universe, or entertainment, or something entirely different... welcome.

 

[Randall]

... I've been listening to the podcasts and reading the threads there and it seems a little heavy on the debunking. I suppose I could quote Fox Mulder and just say, "I want to believe." When I listen to the podcasts I hear a lot of, "We don't discuss Roswell." I hope that is because there just isn't much new on that front and most of those involved are passed on now instead of just debunking it as a fabrication ...

Thanks for your post and glad you enjoy the show

The reason for the Roswell comments is pretty much like you guessed. It's been discussed to death so to speak and there are some almost religious believers out there that tie it into every other conspiracy theory to be found. The bottom line for Roswell is that it's reasonable to believe that some sort of odd debris was found that was initially reported by the Air Force as being a "flying disk" which was interpreted to be synonymous with flying saucer. After that it starts to get murky leaving a tantalizing trail of intrigue, inconsistencies, contradictions, and seeming fabrications that spans decades. It's not a taboo subject here by any means. It's just that for the show's hosts, it's like having to play that same same old song you once loved over and over so many times that eventually it becomes the last one you ever want to hear again ... lol.

On debunking. It's true that there are skeptics here ( including me ). But I'm also one of the "good ones" ( or at least I like to think so ). I take this approach because if we cannot be skeptical of ourselves, we lose our objectivity along with whatever credibility we might have. So I take a very logical approach by applying critical thinking to each claim in order to determine how much weight it deserves compared to others. In the process I listen to everything because even the nonsense is part of the picture, and we cannot separate the signal from the noise unless we know what the noise is.

Personally I believe alien visitation is real and I believe a fair bit of the history surrounding the investigation of UFOs. Beyond that, once again, things begin to get murky really fast. I have opinions about other topics as well, but UFOs are my main thing.

 

[Trajanus]

It's irrelevant if ALL crop circles were made this way. The point is; these two guys made super intricate ones with a plank of wood with rope attached - and fooled MANY so called "experts".

Surely they weren't mentally challenged like the Trents. I don't doubt some people can fool experts but they'd have to be bright or skilled.