I saw 2 UFOs about midnight PST 9/18-9/19

"Look, I have a pension to worry about. I have a family to take care of, and they told me to just back away from this entirely or else." - James Irwin, Apollo 15 astronaut to Frank Stranges after backing out of speaking at a 1976 UFO convention where he was going to “inform us of the strange things he saw on the surface of the moon.”

..

Irwin left NASA and retired from the Air Force with the rank of Colonel in 1972 and founded the High Flight Foundation, spending his last 20 years as a "Goodwill Ambassador for the Prince of Peace", stating that "Jesus walking on the earth is more important than man walking on the moon".[11] He frequently spoke about how his experiences in space had made the presence of God even more real to him than before. Beginning in 1973, Irwin led several expeditions to Mount Ararat, Turkey in search of the remains of Noah's Ark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Irwin#Christianity

Anyone notice that neither of our two resident UFOlogists have made nary a comment on the latest UFO sighting to be posted?

Doesn't that report prove that some UFO sightings are reported for reasons other than "to get the truth out there"?

Some people make such reports as a lark. Some people do it for the attention. Some people do it because they are nuts. Some people do it because of cognitive error. Some people do it because of perceptual error. Some people do it because they've been fooled by other people.

Some people might do it because they've actually seen extraterrestrial activity. But -- unlike any of the other preceding reasons given for making a UFO report -- this has never been shown to be the case so far.

Interesting that Indy believes the teeny tiny miniscule percentage of things seen in our atmosphere that have no discoverable cause to date are likely to be caused by something which has NEVER been shown to be the cause of a UFO sighting in the past rather than for any one of several reasons which have actually been the cause of UFO sightings in the past.

Dick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone notice that neither of our two resident
> UFOlogists have made nary a comment on the latest
> UFO sighting to be posted?

Which one are you talking about, Dick? Didn't realize we were required to comment on everything being posted.


> Doesn't that report prove that some UFO sightings
> are reported for reasons other than "to get the
> truth out there"?

I don't know - you haven't shown me which one you're referring to yet.


> Some people make such reports as a lark. Some
> people do it for the attention. Some people do it
> because they are nuts. Some people do it because
> of cognitive error. Some people do it because of
> perceptual error. Some people do it because
> they've been fooled by other people.

According to Project Bluebook - the government's official arm for covering up incidents of this type - at least 5% of the people do it because they actually saw something unidentifiable.


> Some people might do it because they've actually
> seen extraterrestrial activity. But -- unlike any
> of the other preceding reasons given for making a
> UFO report -- this has never been shown to be the
> case so far.


And that means... what? For centuries people thought pandas were a myth. And Komodo dragons. These are things right here on Earth. Again - I think we all agree on this one - lack of evidence is not evidence.


> Interesting that Indy believes the teeny tiny
> miniscule percentage of things seen in our
> atmosphere that have no discoverable cause to date
> are likely to be caused by something which has
> NEVER been shown to be the cause of a UFO sighting
> in the past rather than for any one of several
> reasons which have actually been the cause of UFO
> sightings in the past.


Where did I say that? A more telling aspect of this conversation is your inability to debate your opponents based on what is actually being said. At least Navy has the good sense to keep quiet when he's painted into a corner.

Too bad you don't have the good sense to quietly ruminate over your obsession with me. Instead, you keep running your mouth, trying to denigrate me at every opportunity, regardless of whether or not it is reasonable to bring my name up at the time, blatantly showing to the world with every such post how much I've gotten under your skin.

Dick,

For the record, it was either Ponder or PTTP who, a while ago, said that she realizes that most UFO reports can be discounted in some way, and that it's the not easily explained remainder, which constitutes a great number over the years, that get her attention.

So when you bring my name up in every other post - not talking to me - but talking about me... it's perfectly fine and dandy.

But if I say you have "good sense" - I'm "obsessing over you" and "denigrating" you.

RIght - got it, Navy. I'll try to reign in the compliments in the future.


BTW, I believe that was me who said most UFO accounts can be discounted - it's the ones that can't that are interesting. But hey - that's a side issue to your obsession point, obviously.

"BTW, I believe that was me who said most UFO accounts can be discounted - it's the ones that can't that are interesting."

Great. Donna said it too. No big deal.

I'm sure she did. Now... can we act like adults?

No, not if asking a question that is simultaneously a jab and an exhortation not to jab is an example of adult behavior.

Was that a shot at me - or were you holding onto that option for future use?

Gibberish and a smiley face. What a surprise.

Navy2711 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dick,
>
> For the record, it was either Ponder or PTTP who,
> a while ago, said that she realizes that most UFO
> reports can be discounted in some way, and that
> it's the not easily explained remainder, which
> constitutes a great number over the years, that
> get her attention.

A "great number" is a relative term and virtually meaningless sans context. Surely there is some normal or expected percentage of all the things seen in the sky that are not readily identifiable by those who happen to see them. On top of that, there is a normal or expected percentage of all the things seen that are not readily identifiable by those that see them, that will never be conclusively identified by anyone.

In light of the above, on what objective basis do you claim that there is a "great number" of things seen in the sky that have yet to be identified and perhaps never will be? What may appear to you to be a "great number" of unidentified sightings, might actually be the expected number or even a small number if put into the proper context.

Hornswoggle Wrote:
------------------------------------
>
> They report what they see, not what they believe.

No, they report their belief about what they perceived. Just because someone SINCERELY believes he perceives something doesn't mean he actually did. Study after study in perceptual psychology supports this fact.

Indy wrote: I don't know - you haven't shown me which one you're referring to yet.

Yes, I did. It's the last one in the series of anonymous ufo reports that pttp posted in this thread; the one about aliens attacking other aliens in our atmosphere.

Dick,

"In light of the above, on what objective basis do you claim that there is a "great number" of things seen in the sky that have yet to be identified and perhaps never will be?"

I used the term "great number" in the casual conversation sense. When normal people talk about a number of things that amount to, say, five, they call it "five" or "a few." When the number gets in the hundreds or the thousands, they call it "hundreds," or "thousands," or "a great number." If the context were that we were talking about hundreds or thousands of ants in a colony, that might be a perfectly normal number of ants. It's still appropriate to call it a "great number" of ants, as long as we are not implying that it's a greater or lesser number of ants than expected.

You might have gotteen the idea that I was implying that the volume of unexplained reports implies anything. I'm not.