What if there are NO anomalous Ufos?

[Ron Collins]

. Think of it as an exercise in data mining.

Yeah, that is precisely it. The problem is integrity (data and individuals).

 

[Kieran]

It means that before we change our entire worldview and every belief about science, it might be a damn good idea to be sure that we are right. Of course Barney Fife never understood that concept. And I've seen several folks on these boards who have the same method of operation.

Lance

Lance what do you hope to gain from spending so much time on a paranormal website? So far i haven't seen much, other then you go out of your way to debunk cases or Criticize the people involved. You don't believe the subject has otherworldly implications, and i pretty sure, you don't believe, we humans have craft of this type hidden somewhere. So i just don't get why you frequent this forum, as much as you do.

 

[Kieran]

You're right Kieran, they need to put a sign up: "Believers Only"

Lance i was just asking an Honest question of you here. You dismiss the whole paranormal topic as nothing but a wild fantasy. But everyone else who posts here believes to some degree there is a real mystery here, but not you, so i just wondering what is your motivation for being here again? Lance it not my forum it belongs to Gene, so your entitled to be here. I'm a believer nice try, but there is people here who are less so, but those people are willing to engage in honest discussion of the topic, you however, and it's is plain as day, prefer to debunk. Are you being honest with us here, do you really believe there is nothing to this topic, or are you just one of those people, who convinces they're personal self that they must disbelieve?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Lance i was just asking an Honest question of you here. You dismiss the whole paranormal topic as nothing but a wild fantasy. But everyone else who posts here believes to some degree there is a real mystery here, but not you, so i just wondering what is your motivation for being here again? Lance it not my forum it belongs to Gene, so your entitled to be here. I'm a believer nice try, but there is people here who are less so, but those people are willing to engage in honest discussion of the topic, you however, and it's is plain as day, prefer to debunk. Are you being honest with us here, do you really believe there is nothing to this topic, or are you just one of those people, who convinces they're personal self that they must disbelieve?

Lance is not the only one here that is skeptic. I'm here because I find the topic interesting; people are certainly seeing strange things. However, strange things that are seen should not be regarded as automatically being paranormal. Without real evidence, and there is no real scientific evidence, all we have are theories. There is nothing wrong with theories, we just can't go around saying that something is 100% certain.
There are so many things that people did not believe until it was proven without a doubt, why should the topics discussed on this forum be any different?
For now, I will continue to take a skeptical approach to extraordinary claims.

 

[Kieran]

Lance is not the only one here that is skeptic. I'm here because I find the topic interesting; people are certainly seeing strange things. However, strange things that are seen should not be regarded as automatically being paranormal. Without real evidence, and there is no real scientific evidence, all we have are theories. There is nothing wrong with theories, we just can't go around saying that something is 100% certain.
There are so many things that people did not believe until it was proven without a doubt, why should the topics discussed on this forum be any different?
For now, I will continue to take a skeptical approach to extraordinary claims.

Angel, i have seen you before in previous posts explore other possibilities. Your not what i would consider to be close-minded person or a debunker, to me you are a skeptic.

My point is lance is neither, "He is not skeptic and he is certainly not open-minded here when it comes to discussing this topic. He is here to debunk this topic as far as i am concerned. So speaking for myself again, i don't understand why he comes here if has his mind is all ready made up?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Angel, i have seen you before in previous posts explore other possibilities. Your not what i would consider to be close-minded person or a debunker, to me you are a skeptic.

My point is lance is neither, "He is not skeptic and he is certainly not open-minded here when it comes to discussing this topic. He is here to debunk this topic as far as i am concerned. So speaking for myself again, i don't understand why he comes here if has his mind is all ready made up?

I wouldn't call him a debunker. He's being realistic. Although we should let him speak for himself. Lance?

 

[Kieran]

I wouldn't call him a debunker. He's being realistic. Although we should let him speak for himself. Lance?

Well i would consider him to be a debunker prove is in his posting. He is realistic about what?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Well i would consider him to be a debunker prove is in his posting. He is realistic about what?

That we simply have no definitive proof of anything paranormal. Is it possible? Maybe. That's why the JREF has that million dollar prize dangling out there for anyone to claim it.

 

[Kieran]

That we simply have no definitive proof of anything paranormal. Is it possible? Maybe. That's why the JREF has that million dollar prize dangling out there for anyone to claim it.

It is possible. You have answered correctly here. See there is a obvious difference between you and lance. Anyway i think i have made my point and i have no further comment to make.

 

[Xylo]

So what could be considered "definitive proof?"

We have a few sightings with multiple eyewitnesses seeing the same objects from different vantage points coupled with radar data which matches the witness description. Is that definitive proof?

We have some photographs, some video and multiple witnesses reporting upon one events. Is that definitive proof?

We have radar tracking data, in-plane camera recordings, along with pilot and radar operator statements. Is that definitive proof?

I'd say there is definitive proof that SOMETHING is happening, that there are SOME anomalous craft in our atmosphere. I will not say that the source of these objects is known. But that there are anomalous events occurring within Earth's atmosphere...definitely.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I'd say there is definitive proof that SOMETHING is happening, that there are SOME anomalous craft in our atmosphere. I will not say that the source of these objects is known. But that there are anomalous events occurring within Earth's atmosphere...definitely.

It is proof that multiple people saw something that they could not identify. It is not proof of something paranormal. As we all know, eyewitnesses are quite unreliable when it comes to definitive proof, and it gets worse as time passes.

It's like belief in a god; there's no proof of that, but a religious person will swear up and down that there is.

 

[Xylo]

It is proof that multiple people saw something that they could not identify. It is not proof of something paranormal. As we all know, eyewitnesses are quite unreliable when it comes to definitive proof, and it gets worse as time passes.

It's like belief in a god; there's no proof of that, but a religious person will swear up and down that there is.

So you are saying that eyewitness + radar returns + camera footage= nothing worthwhile?

 

[Kieran]

So what could be considered "definitive proof?"

We have a few sightings with multiple eyewitnesses seeing the same objects from different vantage points coupled with radar data which matches the witness description. Is that definitive proof?

We have some photographs, some video and multiple witnesses reporting upon one events. Is that definitive proof?

We have radar tracking data, in-plane camera recordings, along with pilot and radar operator statements. Is that definitive proof?

I'd say there is definitive proof that SOMETHING is happening, that there are SOME anomalous craft in our atmosphere. I will not say that the source of these objects is known. But that there are anomalous events occurring within Earth's atmosphere...definitely.

Lot of information has been gathered since the 1960's, but the evidence gathered so far is nothing that you could show to the public at large. That is the argument skeptic's have, they don't dismiss the idea of UFO's in the sky, they just dismiss the idea that they are alien spacecraft. So the only real prove or evidence a Skeptic world would accept..

Well will be the day the President of the United States goes on TV and present's the evidence or case for it and until that day arrives, all other evidence collected, is it not going to change the minds of people who doubt or have no interest.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

So you are saying that eyewitness + radar returns + camera footage= nothing worthwhile?

Where did I say that?
All I'm saying is that it doesn't mean that it's ALIENS or something else that's equally improbable.
Also, please show me some good camera footage of something that was also verified with radar and multiple eyewitnesses.

If there was good evidence, credible scientists like Michio Kaku and Neil DeGrasse-Tyson would have acknowledged it by now. When people like them start taking these claims seriously, I will too.

 

[Kieran]

Where did I say that?
All I'm saying is that it doesn't mean that it's ALIENS or something else that's equally improbable.
Also, please show me some good camera footage of something that was also verified with radar and multiple eyewitnesses.

If there was good evidence, credible scientists like Michio Kaku and Neil DeGrasse-Tyson would have acknowledged it by now. When people like them start taking these claims seriously, I will too.

The Belgium case of the 90's, what more prove do you need. That is just one case tracked by NATO forces "the Belgium Air force to be exact.There radar was top notch for the time, had to be, the COLD WAR had only just ended recently don't forget.

Signals from unknown craft were popping up all over there screens, the triangle craft was also witnessed by hundreds over a long period of time, it was seen over towns and villages and the military in fact chased this craft, but lost it a number of times when the UFO took of a tremendous speeds. The American's inquired according to the Belgium Air force, asking what happened, but from i understand, it was all back-channel correspondence.

Listen to what Michio actually say's 95 percent can be dismissed or explained, but that other 5 per cent requires further study and analysis, that in roundabout way probably means he, is open to this being Alien, but he never say that on Tv.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Listen to what Michio actually say's 95 percent can be dismissed or explained, but that other 5 per cent requires further study and analysis, that in roundabout way probably means he, is open to this being Alien, but he never say that on Tv.

I agree with him. I've read several of his books. You can't pretend to know what he wants to say, other that that you wish he would say it. In his books he explicitly states that it's improbable that Earth is being visited by Aliens.
Further study and analysis does not mean that it's not human. An unknown environmental phenomena is more likely than Aliens, as is military aircraft.

 

[Xylo]

Where did I say that?
All I'm saying is that it doesn't mean that it's ALIENS or something else that's equally improbable.
Also, please show me some good camera footage of something that was also verified with radar and multiple eyewitnesses.

If there was good evidence, credible scientists like Michio Kaku and Neil DeGrasse-Tyson would have acknowledged it by now. When people like them start taking these claims seriously, I will too.

Who said anything about aliens? I certainly haven't.

Look into the Tehran case...or any of the cases that are shown in "Best Evidence."

 

[Kieran]

I agree with him. I've read several of his books. You can't pretend to know what he wants to say, other that that you wish he would say it. In his books he explicitly states that it's improbable that Earth is being visited by Aliens.
Further study and analysis does not mean that it's not human. An unknown environmental phenomena is more likely than Aliens, as is military aircraft.

If he didn't, he wouldn't say improbable here ( he would give a word that would show a negative side towards this topic) improbable doesn't do this, it actually leaves it open for discussion. Where it's human or not, that five per cent is still a unknown so you have to entertain other possibilities. The Belgium Air force were tracking an environmental phenomena are you being serious here? or just looking for easy way out of explaining what happened here?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

If he didn't, he wouldn't say improbable here ( he would give a word that would show a negative side towards this topic) improbable doesn't do this, it actually leaves it open for discussion. Where it's human or not, that five per cent is still a unknown so you have to entertain other possibilities. The Belgium Air force were tracking an environmental phenomena are you being serious here? or just looking for easy way out of explaining what happened here?

I was talking in general terms, not specific to this case.

 

[Kieran]

I was talking in general terms, not specific to this case.

But you have to be specific, you read his book, you said, so you must be aware of what words he used when he revered to this subject.