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

You should all take a look at the Hubbardsville Encounter video [www.youtube.com] . It's a very believable eyewitness account of a close encounter of the third kind (UFO encounters in which an animated creature is present. These include humanoids, robots, and humans who seemed to be occupants or pilots of a UFO).

Here's a drawing by one of the eyewitnesses:




Here's something else I recommend taking a look at: The Hessdalen Lights [www.youtube.com]

From the documentary:

The results of the first four years of studies in cooperation with the Italians conclude that

- The phenomenon exists and is periodically active in Hessdalen.

- The phenomenon is identified as a bright flying object, with special characteristics making it unique to science.

- The phenomenon is more complex and diverse than expected, indicating more than one single kind of phenomenon.

- The phenomenon is sometimes made up of separate units, that may depart and fly away.

- The speeds vary from still to 8 kilometers per second.

- The phenomenon changes course in speeds indicating no mass by physical means.

- The phenomenon seems to be able to take on pieces of plasma or energy from the ground while passing by.

- The phenomenon seems to radiate energy, due to the light and frequent change of color.

- Many interesting spectra in the optical and radio frequency range have been detected, but more data is needed to draw proper conclusions.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2014 12:02AM by Hornswoggle.

Navy: "Are you more likely to believe, based on the claimant's good reputation, that that something was what the person claimed it was (a witch, an alien, etc)? Or are you simply more inclined to investigate further? "

Indy: "I am more likely to believe it is worth further investigation."

Ok, so it follows that an astronaut's good reputation alone does not lend credibility to any extraordinary claims that they might make about ufo's/aliens? Agreed?

How about observational training? If an astronaut/pilot/police officer claims to have seen an angel, does their observational training lend credibility to the proposition that an angel was actually there to be observed? Or does their observational training simply warrant further investigation?

Navy2711 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, so it follows that an astronaut's good
> reputation alone does not lend credibility to any
> extraordinary claims that they might make about
> ufo's/aliens? Agreed?

As long as you agree it lends more credence than some guy with a $12 telescope. That was the original comparison. Dick offered up some anonymous blogger with an opinion and I offered up people who had actually been in space. Which has more credence is the question. Answer? The astronautS (plural).


> How about observational training? If an
> astronaut/pilot/police officer claims to have seen
> an angel, does their observational training lend
> credibility to the proposition that an angel was
> actually there to be observed? Or does their
> observational training simply warrant further
> investigation?


It warrants further investigation. However the comparison is ludicrous at face value. We do not hear police officers (or astronauts) claiming to see angels - something with no basis in reality. We DO hear them claiming to have seen UFOs - something they DOES have a basis in reality. You seem to think angels and aliens are equivalent - they are not. One is very possible (even probable) the other is nothing more than a myth.

Indy gets to determine what has basis in reality and what does not.



============================================================================

*Sanders 2016*

"And these children that you spit on
As they try to change their worlds
Are immune to your consultations
They're quite aware of what they're going through"

You seem to think angels and aliens are equivalent - they are not. One is very possible (even probable) the other is nothing more than a myth. - Indy

Or maybe angels are how the ancients interpreted ETs.

Same with demons.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2014 08:30AM by Hornswoggle.

Hornswoggle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You seem to think angels and aliens are equivalent
> - they are not. One is very possible (even
> probable) the other is nothing more than a myth. -
> Indy
>
> Or maybe angels are how the ancients interpreted
> ETs.
>
> Same with demons.

Or maybe the ancients interpreted ambiguous, incomplete perceptual data by filling in the blanks with cultural memes; you know, the way that they are filled in today with the "UFO" cultural meme (or, in Mexico, with the "witch" cultural meme).

The human brain hates not knowing. It's evolved to fill in the blanks and the uncertainties by grabbing at whatever meme is availvable. Relatively few people understand this, for some reason, even though the information has been out there for decades now as study after study attests to. Most people believe, simply, that whatever they believe they see is what they actually see, end of story. They do not understand the powerful role the human brain plays in "seeing."

Interestingly, in the quoted post, Hornswoggle indicates that she understands the ancients were filling in their perceptual picture with ideas floating around society at the time which led them to "see" angels and demons and the like. It's puzzling that she apparently cannot perceive that people today do the same thing.

So... what are these things then that ancients saw as angels and modern people are seeing as aliens?

Indy,

"You seem to think angels and aliens are equivalent"

Well, I think they're closer than you think they are, but that's not necessarily what I was getting at. I was just trying to discern what, in your mind, lends credence to a claim. I think we're agreed that the reputation and observational training of the claimant do not lend credence to the claim itself. So if you would — what is it about UFO anectdotal evidence that you find compelling? What are the attributes of pilots and astronauts that lend credence to their claim? (... since it's not their reputation and observational training.) Or maybe, is it the sheer number of claims — the fact that so many people have made simliar claims?

"One [alien life / ET visitation] is very possible (even probable)"

While certainly possible, we can not yet assign probability to intelligent alien life. There are many compelling reasons on both sides of the debate. Long distance interstellar travel also presents difficulty in assessing probability.

"the other [angels] is nothing more than a myth."

As with all things, we should proceed on evidence, and the evidence for angels is mountains of anectdotal evidence and little else. Sounds familiar.

Dick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The human brain hates not knowing. It's evolved to
> fill in the blanks and the uncertainties by
> grabbing at whatever meme is availvable.
> Relatively few people understand this, for some
> reason, even though the information has been out
> there for decades now as study after study attests
> to. Most people believe, simply, that whatever
> they believe they see is what they actually see,
> end of story. They do not understand the powerful
> role the human brain plays in "seeing."


LOL! And Sardo thinks I'm the one who gets to determine what constitutes reality. Newsflash Dick - you're not the only one who went to junior high school.

To answer Sardo's nonsense - here's how ET would apply to reality... we know biological life forms exist. We know biological life forms can build technology to fly in space. We know biological lifeforms DO fly in space. We know they travel from one planet to another. That is ALL real - it constitutes REALITY.

Now you explain how ghosts constitute REALITY in any way whatsoever.

Navy2711 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Indy,
>
> "You seem to think angels and aliens are
> equivalent"
>
> Well, I think they're closer than you think they
> are, but that's not necessarily what I was getting
> at. I was just trying to discern what, in your
> mind, lends credence to a claim. I think we're
> agreed that the reputation and observational
> training of the claimant do not lend credence to
> the claim itself. So if you would — what is it
> about UFO anectdotal evidence that you find
> compelling? What are the attributes of pilots
> and astronauts that lend credence to their claim?
> (... since it's not their reputation and
> observational training.) Or maybe, is it the sheer
> number of claims — the fact that so many people
> have made simliar claims?


No, but the number of compelling claims certainly lends more credence to the situation than any ghost stories I've heard. I've yet to see any evidence concerning ghosts that is compelling (or even interesting) in any way whatsoever. Virtually everything I've ever seen does not even rise above the level of fairy tale. UFO evidence - on the other hand - is being redacted by our government in official documents. Forget everything else - that fact alone puts ET far above angels in my book.


> "One is very possible (even probable)"
>
> While certainly possible, we can not yet assign
> probability to intelligent alien life. There are
> many compelling reasons on both sides of the
> debate. Long distance interstellar travel also
> presents difficulty in assessing probability.


We can disagree on that. There are plenty of scientists and other experts who put the probability of ET very high. The fact that we are here ourselves certainly lends more credence to the proposition than the "mysterious sounds" the principals on Ghost Hunters claim to hear in relation to ghosts.


> "the other is nothing more than a myth."
>
> As with all things, we should proceed on evidence,
> and the evidence for angels is mountains of
> anectdotal evidence and little else. Sounds
> familiar.


Well - again - show me any governmental document concerning ghosts that has been redacted. Just one. There are "mountains" of UFO documents that have been redacted.

Indy wrote: We know they travel from one planet to another. That is ALL real - it constitutes REALITY.


Your ignorance on these matters is breathtaking.

YOU know that lifeforms travel from one planet to another??? I don't think you do know that. I don't think you know that lifeforms travel from one planet to another in even as small an area as is the solar system much less from one solar system to another.

Support your statement or withdraw it.

BTW, you've made a fool of yourself (again) by showing your lack of knowledge regarding human cognitive bias . . . but that's hardly front page news now, is it?

Indy,

Regarding the first part of your post to me: I asked, "... what is it about UFO anectdotal evidence that you find compelling? What are the attributes of pilots and astronauts that lend credence to their claim? (... since it's not their reputation and observational training.) Or maybe, is it the sheer number of claims — the fact that so many people have made simliar claims?"

Nowhere in your reply do I see an answer to that. You reasserted that there are compelling claims, and then you went on to government documents. I'm talking about anectdotal evidence. What is it about UFO anectdotal evidence that you find compelling?

"We can disagree on that."

On what? My statement that we can not assign probability to intelligent alien life and interstellar travel? Are you saying those two things are probable?

"The fact that we are here ourselves certainly lends more credence to the proposition..."

If by "the proposition" you mean intelligent alien life travelling to earth, that's certainly something we disagree on. To me, our current understand of astrophysics and biochemistry makes for a pretty high probability of alien life existing somewhere else. However, the fact that we have evolved to become intelligent, and even our modest forays into space travel, does not say much for the probability that intelligent alien life has evolved elsewhere and travels to earth. That doesn't mean I think the probability is low, just unknown.

In other words, I think the probabilty for simple alien life can be assessed with some confidence, not so for 1. intelligent alien life and 2. their performing interstellar travel.

Dick,

I'm guessing that Indy is referring to humans as an example of a lifeform that can travel between planets.
_______

BTW,

Long overdue shout out to Ponderer, who quite a while ago made a great point about convergent evolution in regard to the possibility of alien life having a similar body structure to humans. (The picture of the dolphin and the shark.) Good point, Pondy. I'd known about analagous structures, but never thought to apply that to alien life. That little tidbit pops up in my mind when I think about this stuff now.

Your ignorance is breathtaking.

We* are lifeforms.

We** travel in space.

Statement supported.

You can return to your cartoons now.





*We refers to human beings.
**We refers to other human beings - not you and I.

Figured I better be as clear as possible for the board "logician".

Navy... What I find compelling about any particular anecdotal evidence obviously depends on the evidence in question. The astronauts testimony is anecdotal and compelling imho. Air Force (and other military) pilots (with no apparent ulterior motives) who have everything to lose by claiming to see UFOs reporting on them is compelling. My uncle, an Air Force pilot - who was asked straight up about by my cousin (his son) - refused to answer. This is compelling anecdotal evidence imho. They do not rank on the same level as someone claiming to see a ghost or a "demon" (Hornsy's comment in regards to past "ghost" / "demon" sightings being a side issue). However, I understand that is my opinion and someone like Dick - who obviously has much invested in ET not existing - will insist they are equally credible and therefore dismiss all accounts outright.

So far as the second part, if we can agree other biological forms are probable - it's really not that much of a leap to the next step - interstellar travel. We're already there. As I stated the first time we discussed this, the only thing you really have to believe is that some other life form on some other planet got a head start on us. The Wright Brothers flew a powered craft the first time in 1903 - only 110 years ago. Where will we be in another 110 years? Probably bending space (or something) allowing us to travel the great distances necessary. Add in the perspective - the universe is billions of years old. If some other race were only 1000 years ahead of us - interstellar travel would be second nature to them. If you want to say the probability is unknown - fine - I can agree with that.

So far as aliens having similar body structures to us - I think that is probable as well. If you believe in evolution - that would make sense. We developed everything for a reason... we have two eyes so we can determine depth. We have two ears in order to determine direction. We have an opposable thumb for grasping objects. Etc.. etc... these things didn't magically happen (unless you believe in god) - they evolved by need. It makes sense that other life forms on other planets with similar environments would develop in similar manners. It's not even a far fetched idea imho.