U.F.O. poll

[Tony B.]

Interesting discussions, fellas. Glad I signed up!

Tony B.

 

[Han]

This issue has me very perplexed, because on one hand I think that the name you give something is not necessarily important, but on the other hand I know that if you are trying to catalogue information it becomes paramount to have an mutually accepted "name".
What I am trying to say is that in a lot of cases "context" is sufficient to discern what is being described, but there are also occasions when it is not.

I will attempt to demonstrate what I am getting at by showing three pictures of objects that are already identified, but are very, very different. (despite the similarity in their appearance)

(A)

(B)

(C)

Two of the above objects are about 100 years old, the other one is about 2000 (two thousand) years old. One is for straining wine and the other two are for straining tea.

They could ALL be described as "strainers" or "sieves" or even "filters".
They could ALL be described as "metallic" or "silver".
They could ALL be described as "Tableware" or "utensils" "silverware"
They could ALL be described as being "old"
They could ALL be described as being manufactured using the "lost wax" technique or "cast"


Conversely only:

One could be described as "ancient"
One could be described as "Greek"
One could be described as a "wine strainer"
One could be described "A-symmetric"* (object C)

& only:

Two could be described as "Victorian", "Deco" or "nineteenth century"
Two could be described as "English", British" or "sterling"
Two could be described as "symmetrical"* (objects A and B)


Now is the time to say that Object A and C are English silver "Tea strainers" and B is an ancient Greek "wine strainer".
You can see in my list that when I said "Two could be described as "symmetrical"* (objects A and B)" That object A and B were manufactured about 2ooo years apart for different functions.

Remember that in this case we are dealing with "identified" objects of "known" origin and function, but if I saw all three of these objects in a display case at a museum, and they were all mislabelled as the same thing, my suspicion would not be aroused, due to the fact that in appearance they are so very similar.
When talking about unidentified things of unknown origin, there is an even greater scope for error, and that is why I believe that this thread is important and relevant.

 

[trainedobserver]

Remember that in this case we are dealing with "identified" objects of "known" origin and function, but if I saw all three of these objects in a display case at a museum, and they were all mislabelled as the same thing, my suspicion would not be aroused, due to the fact that in appearance they are so very similar.
When talking about unidentified things of unknown origin, there is an even greater scope for error, and that is why I believe that this thread is important and relevant.

My point exactly. Mislabeling an unknown prejudices anyone coming after and can lead to the false identification of other similar objects, shutting down whole avenues of inquiry.

While we would be correct to say that some UFO reports appear to be of vehicles manufactured by an alien civilization, however we have no evidence that confirms that they are. Proving that something is or was a product of an alien civilization hasn't been done to my knowledge. When that happens it will be a pretty historic day I think.

 

[trainedobserver]

An excellent case of misidentification is David Serada's incredible misidentification of camera artifacts in the tether footage as alien spacecraft from which he derived an entire new pseudo-physics. Serada saw a UFO and became a believer in the ETH, as many do, at an early age.

 

[Randall]

This issue has me very perplexed, because on one hand I think that the name you give something is not necessarily important, but on the other hand I know that if you are trying to catalogue information it becomes paramount to have an mutually accepted "name". What I am trying to say is that in a lot of cases "context" is sufficient to discern what is being described, but there are also occasions when it is not ... When talking about unidentified things of unknown origin, there is an even greater scope for error, and that is why I believe that this thread is important and relevant.

You're absolutely right. In casual conversation, when someone uses the word UFO, it's normal for it to conjure up images of an alien craft, usually the classic flying saucer, and from there things can always be clarified. However the issue goes deeper with UFOs because there are active efforts to marginalize the subject that focuses on what the word UFO means. The first group are the anti-ufology skeptics. I'm sure you've heard me mention a common ploy of theirs that goes something like this:

"What is a UFO? It's an unidentified flying object. Therefore because it's unidentified, we don't know what it is and that's where the conversation should end. It's an argument from ignorance to jump from there to aliens"
​

So they leverage the confusion around the word to misrepresent the nature of the subject matter, and then use that misrepresentation to portray anyone who sees a UFO ( alien craft ) as fantasy prone people with wild imaginations who have no valid reasons for saying they saw something alien, when in fact UFO witnesses may have perfectly valid reasons for saying that what they observed was an alien craft. I recently went through this with respect to my own sighting again on this forum.

Then there is the UAP ( unidentified aerial phenomena ) movement started by NARCAP and heavily promoted by journalist Leslie Kean. This movement is more subtle but it still undermines ufology because it focuses on the idea that UFOs ( alien craft ) are little more than entertainment, not worthy of serious investigation, and alludes to those who believe UFOs are alien craft as being part of the lunatic fringe ( usually without implicitly stating it ). Yet this same movement has exploited ufology to promote its own products and agenda.

So to reiterate the point again using your example as an analogy, it's not simply that we have people misusing an accepted term for something like a tea strainer, but actively exploiting the existing term to claim that tea strainers are a product of the imaginations of fantasy prone people or hucksters and not worth taking seriously, and it's this aspect of the problem that irks me to no end. It's what motivated me to research the history and usage of the word UFO and come up with a supportable definition that also preserves the core subject matter of serious ufology.

 

[Randall]

My point exactly. Mislabeling an unknown prejudices anyone coming after and can lead to the false identification of other similar objects, shutting down whole avenues of inquiry.

Then don't mislabel objects that aren't clearly something alien as UFOs. that's why we have a million YouTube videos of vague objects or lights off in the distance being promoted as UFOs. They're not. They're just vague lights off in the distance. So much confusion could be cleared up if people would simply get this right for a change.

While we would be correct to say that some UFO reports appear to be of vehicles manufactured by an alien civilization, however we have no evidence that confirms that they are.

That's just wrong. There's plenty of evidence, just not the kind that you appear to accept as valid.

Proving that something is or was a product of an alien civilization hasn't been done to my knowledge. When that happens it will be a pretty historic day I think.

Again that all depends on what you consider proof. Proof is evidence that is sufficient to make someone believe that what they are proposing is true, and because many people have experienced such evidence themselves, they know alien visitation is true. They don't need some scientist or you to validate that for them.

 

[trainedobserver]

i spent many hours on sts 75, i dont think anyone anywhere ever repeated/replicated the ' going behind the tether ' part of the said anomally.

I've believe I've seen it done. If I'm not mistaken, the UFO Hunters episode about it reproduces that effect as well. The "notched discs" have been reproduced and explained pretty thoroughly I think.

 

[manxman]

i mentioned nothing about the changing notches positionally, i only focused on the said illusion of going behind the tether.

i would like to see it repeated, for an illusion it must be, because that debri is from one of the 127 tile strikes on that mission

 

[trainedobserver]

i mentioned nothing about the changing notches positionally, i only focused on the said illusion of going behind the tether.

i would like to see it repeated, for an illusion it must be, because that debri is from one of the 127 tile strikes on that mission

Here is an analysis of the footage that I hadn't seen before today. He does a good job of explaining and demonstrating the whole "pass behind" illusion.

Providing an unintentional cautionary tale, here is Serada (who claimed to be a professional photographer b.t.w.) extrapolating an explanation for alien spacecraft propulsion from camera artifacts. (where did I put that facepalm gif ...)

 

[manxman]

i dont like oberg, he is a lazy sloppy nasty debunker.

however, i quoted him as behind and down, whereas rereading an old word document, of our conversation, the tether was behind and above the shuttle, which makes an explosive impact even more of a certainty.

heres where after many many pages, he finally starts to admit he was wrong, but not straight out of course, see what i mean for yourself, every single point you challenge him on, with quoted and linked nasa data, is like pulling teeth, he will hand wave insult and mock, until he knows you wont give up, then he will morth his opinion, and just sail on as if he said that all along.


example

this is his first grudging admittence he was lying, he wasnt wrong, a anyone in his position would know that even ice crystals fall away infront of the shuttle in minutes, not behind and above.

oberg

You have correctly noted that small particles of any size will drift away from the shuttle over a matter of minutes or tens of minutes. It has less to do with the shuttle firing its thrusters -- although that does happen and will cause the effect you suggest -- but with air drag. Tiny objects are more susceptible to drag and drop into lower, faster orbits very quickly -- like, tens of minutes.

see how he now passively agrees
also he now has to swallow his claim the ice is there following along from a fez dump over an hour prior, for which we both had documentation.
but now he has to introduce mythical 'drag' and thrusters, never mentioned previous,

then

oberg
Small shuttle-derived particles quickly drop into lower orbits and pull ahead of the shuttle. Clouds of particles from a water dump can be seen

still claiming ice, but shameless in his complete 100 percent u-turn


now he leans his full weight on thrusters as if i was right about them, i hadnt mentioned them, slithery prick.

oberg

The leading cause of objects changing course in these videos is thruster firings. NASA provides charts of all thruster firings, .


so you have to break your balls, with linked nasa data to show him he is bullshitting again, see he has to get the ice crystals behind and above the shuttle, so drag, then thrusters, so then you have to get all the burn times to stop his bs there, then you get this.


oberg

There's plenty of air drag in space -- it's why nearby particles are cleared out of the shuttle vicinity in a matter of tens of minutes.

so again you have to prove him wrong with linked nasa data, and now he is quoting as fact, what has taken me days quoting to him for 100 pages prior as if he has been saying it all along, the previous 100 pages they were ice crystals from a fez dump an hour and 3 orbits ago.
from nasa's other 'experts' there is no drag at 150miles up, just gravity.

those quotes are days and pages apart, its like pulling teeth, intellectual integrity is not very high on obergs list of priorities.

this went on for weeks, and both of us were heading to the same end point [particles], just that obergs original prosiac explanation was nonesense, but he weave's a good yarn.

 

[trainedobserver]

i dont like oberg, he is a lazy sloppy nasty debunker.

He can be pretty irritating. The real go-to on the tether footage is one of the several technical videos out there that actually reproduce and explain these known and well understood video anomalies

 

[manxman]

i had all these, and 100s of other nasa documents [pdf's]to challenge him with, cameras ,experiments , technical alterations on that flight, ie new switcher valves specially fitted for fez experiments etc.

and im like a rabid dog when someone is trying to bs me playing on their reputation/assumed expertise only.

you dont need any expertise to read and absord small points of data, you just have to be prepared to wade thru page after page until you find what you need from someone who out ranks him, in the 'expertise' stakes, he knows that ofcourse, he also knows only 1 in a thousand will spend weeks gening up on flight and shuttle data..


this is why i dont get involved in a serious way here, it's just too time consuming to prove point after point.

 

[trainedobserver]

manxman,

I guess I'm not following you. Are you trying to say the objects are large and far away as opposed to small and close up?

 

[manxman]

they are impact debri, they [nasa] planned the flyby filming of the tether, when they decided not to retrieve, they were also conducting crystal growing experiments as per itinary.
the crew and craft were on a minimal disturbance [vibration] phase due to those experiments, the crew could not even perform their daily exercise routine, so they according to oberg, dumped the fez about an hour and 10 mins prior to the closest rendevous, as per schedule, only they cancelled it, so as to have a pristine enviroment to film with both sets of cameras, that flight was the one with the new TOP's camera, only their plans were dashed by a micro meteor strike, which showed up in the crystal data as a spike, however that data i was not aware of at that precise time, not that it is overly important, it was oberg's intellectual dishonesty that really hooked me in.

this what the execute package says

DELETE; SUPPLY/WASTE WATER DUMP

DELETE; SUPPLY/WASTE WATER DUMP

also i read why it was cancelled, because of the negative impact on the experiments, as a dump pushes the craft off-line, its a pressurised dump, which needs correcting with further burns, and both cause vibration a dump is out of the side, not the rear,.

not that it matters there wasnt one, but even if there was it couldnt rise up and go behind the shuttle, and the only way it can survive more than a few seconds is if it is in the shuttles shadow, otherwise it will gas out, instantly freeze in the vaccume, then boil on the sunlit side, thats why it spins [pulsates when out of focus], plus ofcourse it drops down and away within minutes even if it were to be in shadow.



it was very lazy sloppy debunking.

 

[manxman]

one last thing, the shuttle flies spine out to open space the majority of the time, to protect its tiles, when the tether unexpectantly broke free, they didnt have enough fuel to retrieve it safely, but they had enough to flip/roll the shuttle prior to the experiments and flip it back, both unplanned for as they didnt know the tether would break, now she is flying belly out.

0 earth
/ shuttle

0 / belly out, [upsidedown near enough] bay cameras perfectly positioned, tops camera was centre top bay bulkhead, tether 47 miles above and left.

just as they start filming a micro meteor strikes the top edge somewhere blasting the debri up and out, it rains up thru the picture, but it arcs down, each and every particle as gravity takes effect, you can see it clearly on youtube vids that track the paths.

oberg didnt think of it, so decided to make ice crystals fit, by working back from a wrong conclusion, then clung to it like a drowning man, if he really wanted to explain it, he could of, the azimuths times etc are all there, he just pretended to have researched it.


....................

and just so yall understand why the debri needed to go up and backwards, tether was 40 miles higher in its orbit.

STS-75 Day 6 Highlights

Earlier today, ground controllers used tracking stations scattered around the world to receive information from the Tethered Satellite which broke free from the shuttle on Sunday. Now in an orbit of 219 nautical miles.

shuttle
Columbia is in an orbit of 181 nautical miles.

 

[manxman]

actually it isnt i want to show the guys exact statements, from rense.


oberg

Since the STS-75 flight records show that the famous "swarm/tether" scene was made three days after the tether break (and not immediately afterwards, as many viewers were led to misconstrue), then it is possible that the shuttle crew had returned to normal shuttle operations. And indeed they had. A check (by me) of shuttle crew activities show that the "swarm/tether" scene was proceded a few hours earlier by a routine water dump, a process that is known to create clouds of debris particles, many of which linger around the shuttle for several hours before drifting off.



truth is he knew this to be false when writing his piece on rense, and its still there as is, and same on his site.

wrong

A check (by me) ; simply untrue

wrong

shuttle crew activities show that the "swarm/tether" scene was proceded a few hours earlier by a routine water dump ; wrong both that days dumps were cancelled as per execute package.

wrong

a process that is known to create clouds of debris particles, many of which linger around the shuttle for several hours before drifting off. ; how wrong is that, seconds to a few minutes, becomes hours, or theres no ice, just blatant mis-direction even if they would have dumped, which they didnt.




finally

quote direct response to me after days of ignoring my quoted linked post.
oberg

You have correctly noted that small particles of any size will drift away from the shuttle over a matter of minutes or tens of minutes. It has less to do with the shuttle firing its thrusters -- although that does happen and will cause the effect you suggest -- but with air drag. Tiny objects are more susceptible to drag and drop into lower, faster orbits very quickly -- like, tens of minutes.


oberg
Small shuttle-derived particles quickly drop into lower orbits and pull ahead of the shuttle. Clouds of particles from a water dump can be seen

 

[Derek Wood]

My personal view on the matter is that we are bound by inherited nomenclature. The term UFO was initially constructed to *directly explain* a *craft who's origin is a consequence of non human design and flight. Aliens. Creatures from mars. Flying saucers.

We hamstring ourselves to continue this outdated explanatory term and the model it implies.

We need new thinking and classification systems which are based upon multivariate strands of reasoning and evidence. To continue to use the term UFO is actually a logical fallacy: it's implication is simple: that something was flying but we can't, for whatever reason, classify it within known or speculative categories.

 

[Derek Wood]

This issue has me very perplexed, because on one hand I think that the name you give something is not necessarily important, but on the other hand I know that if you are trying to catalogue information it becomes paramount to have an mutually accepted "name".
What I am trying to say is that in a lot of cases "context" is sufficient to discern what is being described, but there are also occasions when it is not.

I will attempt to demonstrate what I am getting at by showing three pictures of objects that are already identified, but are very, very different. (despite the similarity in their appearance)

(A)

(B)

(C)

Two of the above objects are about 100 years old, the other one is about 2000 (two thousand) years old. One is for straining wine and the other two are for straining tea.

They could ALL be described as "strainers" or "sieves" or even "filters".
They could ALL be described as "metallic" or "silver".
They could ALL be described as "Tableware" or "utensils" "silverware"
They could ALL be described as being "old"
They could ALL be described as being manufactured using the "lost wax" technique or "cast"


Conversely only:

One could be described as "ancient"
One could be described as "Greek"
One could be described as a "wine strainer"
One could be described "A-symmetric"* (object C)

& only:

Two could be described as "Victorian", "Deco" or "nineteenth century"
Two could be described as "English", British" or "sterling"
Two could be described as "symmetrical"* (objects A and B)


Now is the time to say that Object A and C are English silver "Tea strainers" and B is an ancient Greek "wine strainer".
You can see in my list that when I said "Two could be described as "symmetrical"* (objects A and B)" That object A and B were manufactured about 2ooo years apart for different functions.

Remember that in this case we are dealing with "identified" objects of "known" origin and function, but if I saw all three of these objects in a display case at a museum, and they were all mislabelled as the same thing, my suspicion would not be aroused, due to the fact that in appearance they are so very similar.
When talking about unidentified things of unknown origin, there is an even greater scope for error, and that is why I believe that this thread is important and relevant.

Brilliantly eloquent.

 

[manxman]

The acronym U.F.O. means ...

1. An Unidentified Flying Object.
2. A Flying Object Identified as an Alien Craft.
3. A Flying Saucer
4. A Flying Object Identified as an Extraterrestrial Craft.

couldnt vote TO.

1 is what i wanted to vote for, but many ufo's are just unidentified falling objects imo.

 

[trainedobserver]

The acronym U.F.O. means ...

1. An Unidentified Flying Object.
2. A Flying Object Identified as an Alien Craft.
3. A Flying Saucer
4. A Flying Object Identified as an Extraterrestrial Craft.

couldnt vote TO.

1 is what i wanted to vote for, but many ufo's are just unidentified falling objects imo.

Well the question is about the meaning of the term, not our notions about the true nature of an object labeled with it.