Do you believe in UFOs & flying saucers ?

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sam Harris, one of the most die hard sceptics in modern times has changed his mind on this phenomenon. He's stating that we should be very excited

I am not sure he has changed his position much on the matter at all.

Firstly because I am not sure he has expressed an opinion on the matter in the past - or has he? To know if he has changed his position - one would have to have details of his previous position against which to compare it?

Secondly and more importantly though - the vast majority of that link you just shared was not him expressing his opinion or position on the matter. At all.

Rather he is reporting what was discussed in the Washington Post - rumours he has heard - and what a person who contacted him privately has said. Very little - if any - of that 3 minute piece of audio is Harris describing his own position at all! Re listen to it and give me the time stamps you _think_ is him giving his own position and I will recheck if you think I am in error here.

In fact the only part that sounds like Harris giving his own position is when he called the things he has heard "Goofy". Everything else is him reporting what he has read or heard or has been told may about to be revealed.

So no - at this point I think it fair to say that his position has not changed at all. And having just listened to him talk to Neil DeGrasse Tyson on a podcast released just yesterday - his position on the matter remains pretty much just as open - but sceptical - as Tyson's is.

As for "apologising" - if someone has been laughing or mocking someone then by all means apologise. If however someone is just sceptical of a claim without evidence - and then the evidence later comes in - there is literally nothing to apologise for.

If someone does need to apologise - and I hasten to point out I do not think anyone does - it is in fact the people making truth claimswithout evidence who should be apologising saying "Sorry we wasted your time making claims without evidence before - but actually now we have some - so can we please return to the table?".

Butson

flanna01 wrote: »

I'm leaning towards electrical weather phenomenon....

The speed and vast area(s) covered by forked lightening when it arcs is amazing. We have seen the footage of ball lightening doing its thing. I suggest the UAP sightings are of the same nature, except we have no understanding of it yet.

The intermittent fuzzy images witnessed on the videos suggest to me, that there is serious fluctuating speed velocity involved, couple this with the erratic 'flight path' seen, it compares to an electrical weather anomaly to me??

Studying some of the footage, it would seem similar to a tumbling barrel falling from the sky at supersonic speed (crude description I know), you can certainly rule out any form of intelligently controlled craft(s).

Interesting topic, but it's an electrical weather anomaly for me all the way.

Are you suggesting that the US Navy ships that are tracking these things for days on their radar etc, extremely experienced fighter pilots, scientists in the Pentagon that have been looking at it....Electrical Weather?

MadYaker

flanna01 wrote: »

I'm leaning towards electrical weather phenomenon....

The speed and vast area(s) covered by forked lightening when it arcs is amazing. We have seen the footage of ball lightening doing its thing. I suggest the UAP sightings are of the same nature, except we have no understanding of it yet.

The intermittent fuzzy images witnessed on the videos suggest to me, that there is serious fluctuating speed velocity involved, couple this with the erratic 'flight path' seen, it compares to an electrical weather anomaly to me??

Studying some of the footage, it would seem similar to a tumbling barrel falling from the sky at supersonic speed (crude description I know), you can certainly rule out any form of intelligently controlled craft(s).

Interesting topic, but it's an electrical weather anomaly for me all the way.

If you watched and read everything that’s been released you would know there are things that pilots are claiming they saw that can’t be explained by lightning. Many pilots talked about their jets being followed by these things. These witness accounts are backed up by data from radar that shows actual physical objects moving through the air. Lightning is energy it has no mass and cant show up on radar.

So it’s not weather, but the Americans could still be making all this up. I myself am undecided until more information is released. The radar data is what makes it very interesting because that means these things have mass, they have a physical form it’s not just energy. Or at least not as we understand it.

satguy

In a world were everybody has a good camera on their phone,, all we see is rubbish,, rubbish that should not even make the news.

If people from another star system are here, they have FTL travel,, and it's a long long way to come, just to hover over a clapped out US coastguard boat, and then go home again.

So no,, we are not being visited by aliens,, ever ..

Butson

Butson wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the US Navy ships that are tracking these things for days on their radar etc, extremely experienced fighter pilots, scientists in the Pentagon that have been looking at it....Electrical Weather?

Absolutely it should be _suggested_. Every hypothesis should be suggested. Then tested. Including a hypothesis of non-human species technology. Why not?

Rubbishing any hypothesis because it might seem "too obvious" would certainly be an error for the scientists and other people you list above. In fact in our past scientists have left themselves embarrassed at times because they did not consider the obvious simple explanations and only went looking for the complex ones.

On a general note however:

A warning light should go off for you however if you find yourself lending credibility to job titles. All the people you list above are people. And people err. Sometimes repeatedly - over long periods of time - and sometimes in groups too.

Scientists have engaged in errors in the past. And they have been duped quite often intentionally too. Go back and look into the time James Randi commissioned street magicians to dupe scientists into thinking they were psychic. The scientists fell for it despite the fact Randi gave them the order that if even _one_ scientist asked "Is this all a trick?" they were to come clean and admit it straight away Simply no scientist asked. Rather all the scientists involved - instead of evaluating the data critically - evaluated it under the light of the bias of the conclusion they already wanted to reach.

Take the phrase "Experienced Fighter Pilot" for example. They are experienced yes. Which means they are _more_ used to the trials of high altitude high speed flight than you or I would be. But they are not impervious to them. They are less likely to black out - start to hallucinate - have visual discrepancies than you and I would be under that duress. But they are not immune.

Further it is very important also when evaluating any single testimony to work out whether you are speaking of direct human testimony - as in something seen with the actual eyes of the pilot or ship captain - or is the person giving the testimony actually recounting what their instruments saw rather than what they themselves saw. I find quite often people miss that difference at times.

Though either instrument biological or machine can err - it is worth pointing out that we have had quite a few embarrassments in the past due to bad equipment or bad interface between equipment and humans. Neil DeGrasse Tyson tells the story of how we used to think there was a Planet X for example based on data from our instruments. And after years of many people looking for it a man called Dr. E. Myles Standish Jr. decided to recheck some of the original data and found that two data points were off. One of the observatories in particular which produced some of the data had errors which were never challanged. And when Standish reworked the numbers using all the data _except_ the data from the faulty observatory - the evidence for Planet X pretty much disappeared. (Though Voyager 2 also helped here by giving us a new and more accurate measurement for the mass of Neptune).

I am saying all this without weighing in on any particular piece of data - or without giving what my own opinion on this stuff is - it is just a general statement about data as a concept rather than any specific data itself. Caution all the way is my approach.

I am generally with Tyson on this one. My General approach is:

New data is exciting. The quest to explain new data is even more exciting. Jumping to conclusions as to what the new data means - is boring as fuukk.

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't want you to believe anything.

The senior radar operator on the Nimitz stated that radar data indicated that these unknown aircraft accelerated to 80,000 feet per second instantly. At one point the object in the Nimitz encounter moved towards another point 40 miles away in a second. It isn't surprising they wouldn't get a clear picture of that. They have radar data and FLIR imaging which gives us far more data about these things.

80,000 feet per second is 24.384Km/s.

7.8 km/s is enough to go into orbit and 16.6Km/s is enough to leave the solar system.

Not only would there be a sonic boom there would be massive compressive heating of the air too. Fireball.


40 miles in a second is way faster and louder and brighter.

Capt'n Midnight

IMHO they still haven't ruled out this

steddyeddy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

80,000 feet per second is 24.384Km/s.

7.8 km/s is enough to go into orbit and 16.6Km/s is enough to leave the solar system.

Not only would there be a sonic boom there would be massive compressive heating of the air too. Fireball.


40 miles in a second is way faster and louder and brighter.

That's true Cap. Actually the 40 number was taken from an interview with another pilot who stated radar data indicating 46k miles an hour.

Interestingly the pilots state that one of the interesting things about these craft is that they can go hypersonic without producing a sonic boom.

Hamsterchops

satguy wrote: »

In a world were everybody has a good camera on their phone,, all we see is rubbish,, rubbish that should not even make the news.

If people from another star system are here, they have FTL travel,, and it's a long long way to come, just to hover over a clapped out US coastguard boat, and then go home again.

So no,, we are not being visited by aliens,, ever ..

OK, but the thing is this ......

The US have confirmed that these unknown craft are not theirs, and we doubt very much if the Chinese or Russians are capable of making such craft, and anyway, what about the physics of theses things? Doing Mach 13 with no sonic boom, changing direction in the blink of an eye, dropping 80k feet, then shooting back up in a flash! Stopping then accelerating to some "impossible" velocity in a nanosecond.

They may not be alien in origin, but if not, then who the hell is making them, SPECTRE?

I was going down the (ball lightening) route myself, untill recently, then I saw the interviews with Alex Deitrich, Dave Fravor, Chad Underwood + other pilots both military & civil, and they all talk about the fact that it's a solid craft, metallic /dull white, impossible to categorise and very very fast!

The official UFO report we've all been waiting for is now due out on the 25th of this month.

Fuzzyduzzy

I love how the people who believed in the non-human origins of these incidents used to sound like clowns now it's the other way around. Actually listen to this guy. I guess he must have some audience if he's getting bookings so it's in his own best interests to keep spouting nonsense.
https://youtu.be/siZPaZ9hcEA

Hamsterchops

Thanks for video, so here's a question for him.

What about the eyewitness accounts of .......

Professional pilots.

ohnonotgmail

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Thanks for video, not do sure Neil Dr Grasse Tyson is spouting nonsense, quite the contrary as I'd say he's spouting well thought-out logical skepticism, but, here's a question for him ......

What about the eyewitness accounts of .......

Professional pilots.

do those eyewitness accounts say they are alien in origin?

BorneTobyWilde

A toddler who refused to eat his vegetables reported an unidentified flying object had spent all morning attempting to shovel broccoli into his mouth.

Hamsterchops

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

do those eyewitness accounts say they are alien in origin?

No, of cousre not.

The phenomon is unknown & unidentifiable, which in itself is pretty amazing.

Fuzzyduzzy

Fuzzyduzzy wrote: »

spouting nonsense.

What was actually nonsense? Or are we just doing that thing where we shout "nonsense" at something and run away?

Maybe the reason "he's getting bookings" is that he actually has something to say rather than just "dismiss and run"?

Hamsterchops wrote: »

No, of cousre not.

Then you have answered your own question because I think that is essentially his response to both eye witness accounts - and things like radar readings.

In both cases he basically says "We saw something interesting - we do not know what it was - lets find out!".

BorneTobyWilde

https://twitter.com/Ashutos32363607/status/1398688531468283907

Steve012

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Ashutos32363607/status/1398688531468283907

13 sec in is the tail light of the bike caught on the camera behind it, looks like a female human funny 😂

Fuzzyduzzy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What was actually nonsense? Or are we just doing that thing where we shout "nonsense" at something and run away?

Maybe the reason "he's getting bookings" is that he actually has something to say rather than just "dismiss and run"?



Then you have answered your own question because I think that is essentially his response to both eye witness accounts - and things like radar readings.

In both cases he basically says "We saw something interesting - we do not know what it was - lets find out!".

Clown by giggling at his own outdated jokes. I love how the ufo same old samo jokes are fading away.

Nonsense by:
- wondering why an advanced technology would bother showing interest in Earth's most advanced military.
- Disregarding professional military observations.
- "some kind of bug or malfunction of the electronics"... really?

He talks about 2 incidents and ignores 70+ years of countless similar events.

If he was a decent scientist, who didn't just want to be part of the Mick West 'professional sceptic' brigade, he would be more accustomed to using the sentence: I don't know.

His arrogance amazes me more than the UAP videos tracked on radar.

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's true Cap. Actually the 40 number was taken from an interview with another pilot who stated radar data indicating 46k miles an hour.

Interestingly the pilots state that one of the interesting things about these craft is that they can go hypersonic without producing a sonic boom.

Sonic boom is not produced by an object. It's produced by the air it displaces.

And even if you ignore the boom there's still the issue of compressive heating of air.

Radar is tricky. The UK had awful problems with their Nimrod AEW3 project. Not least of which was starting with an aircraft that had been out of production for bleedin' ages. The software had to be updated to ignore cars and fast cyclists because there were too many radar returns.

steddyeddy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Sonic boom is not produced by an object. It's produced by the air it displaces.

Sure.

And even if you ignore the boom there's still the issue of compressive heating of air.

Also unusual is the fact that these things were out there were recorded in US airspace for hours at a time. Fighter planes only have enough fuel for 1-2 hours max.

Radar is tricky. The UK had awful problems with their Nimrod AEW3 project. Not least of which was starting with an aircraft that had been out of production for bleedin' ages. The software had to be updated to ignore cars and fast cyclists because there were too many radar returns.

Yes it's complicated alright.

What's being ignored by all of the hardcore sceptics is that the FLIR is often slaved to the radar systems in these aircraft. The FLIR doesn't focus on things not picked up by the radar.

Fuzzyduzzy

https://twitter.com/CAARIU/status/1403865095139205124?s=20

igCorcaigh

Fuzzyduzzy wrote: »

https://twitter.com/CAARIU/status/1403865095139205124?s=20

"Crashed craft, material and bodies recovered *ahem*."

I hope The Orb are looking for new samples.

Nice though. We can only guess about the classified stuff. Or is this all a psyops ploy?

Regardless, it's damn interesting.

igCorcaigh

So much focus on data from the US.

Surely, for the UAP phenomenon to be taken seriously, we need sources from other countries, right?

Has there been anything new?

Fuzzyduzzy

So nothing described below is nonsense from him. Mostly it is nonsense from you.

Fuzzyduzzy wrote: »

Clown by giggling at his own outdated jokes.

So you have an issue that people have a sense of humour that differs from your own? That issue would be your problem - not his. But I asked you what he _said_ that was "nonsense" so taking personal swipes at his sense of humor is just you deflecting from what you were asked. Opening up with personal insults basically. Typical.

Fuzzyduzzy wrote: »

wondering why an advanced technology would bother showing interest in Earth's most advanced military.

"Wondering" is not nonsense. Wonder and Wondering are the driving force behind science and seeking answers to questions. There is nothing wrong with wondering. Asking questions and thinking about possibilities is a good thing.

Fuzzyduzzy wrote: »

Disregarding professional military observations.

He did no such thing - you are making stuff up now. What he does do however is urge caution before accepting whole sale any observation or - more specifically - the meaning of any observation. He is perfectly happy to accept observations offered so long as we do not jump to conclusions about what those observations were - or what explains them.

Fuzzyduzzy wrote: »

"some kind of bug or malfunction of the electronics"... really?

Again - suggesting all the possible alternatives for data is a good and scientific approach. Jumping to one conclusion and rubbishing the suggestions other people offer is a bad approach. Again this means it is your nonsense not his here.

The entire process behind how and why we went looking for a Planet X and a Planet 9 are a good example here. People spent years looking for it before one person noticed that one observatory had faulty data and one probe gave us a more accurate reading of the mass of neptune.

Humans are flawed and our technology is too. Radar for example has had a checkered history and we constantly seek to improve it. When our electronics give us a result we can not understand we should absolutely look into that - and we should absolutely consider technology failure as _one_ of the explanations to work with.

That you want to dismiss one line of inquiry - while he wants to keep open all lines of inquiry - against support my contention that it is you pushing nonsense here not him.

Fuzzyduzzy wrote: »

I don't know.

Then you know very little about him because that is the approach he uses quite often. He speaks often about how humans do not know - and the excitement behind our drive to find out.

As I said in an earlier post - New data is exciting. The quest to explain new data is even more exciting. Jumping to conclusions about that data is boring as fkkk.

Fuzzyduzzy wrote: »

His arrogance

And you close off with personal insults. Quelle Surprise there.

the purple tin

A lot of people calling themselves 'skeptics' are misusing the term. Look up Pyrrho, he says a skeptic is someone who is willing to admit that they don't know.

People like Mick West would be more in the Aristotle school: know-it-alls who have to have an explanation for everything, often an absurd explanation that has no basis in reality.

Rhys Essien

igCorcaigh wrote: »

So much focus on data from the US.

Surely, for the UAP phenomenon to be taken seriously, we need sources from other countries, right?

Has there been anything new?

The sad reality is that the vast majority of people still treat the subject as complete balderdash. And if people actually see something in the sky that they can’t explain they tend to keep it to themselves. Typical example from a few weeks ago on the Neil Prendeville radio show and only for him bringing up the subject and asking people to call in with their stories, we then heard of three different sightings over different parts of Cork, two of which described a type of craft and the other an orb. The caller describing the cigar shaped craft I found very intriguing.

These sightings were all in the last few months.Now did any of them make any websites....Not that I saw. Did any of them make the local papers...again not that I saw. Did they make the news on TV3 or RTÉ....not a chance.

Makes you wonder about how much unusual stuff is wizzing around in the sky that we never hear about and that’s only over this country.

Fuzzyduzzy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So nothing described below is nonsense from him. Mostly it is nonsense from you.



So you have an issue that people have a sense of humour that differs from your own? That issue would be your problem - not his. But I asked you what he _said_ that was "nonsense" so taking personal swipes at his sense of humor is just you deflecting from what you were asked. Opening up with personal insults basically. Typical.



"Wondering" is not nonsense. Wonder and Wondering are the driving force behind science and seeking answers to questions. There is nothing wrong with wondering. Asking questions and thinking about possibilities is a good thing.



He did no such thing - you are making stuff up now. What he does do however is urge caution before accepting whole sale any observation or - more specifically - the meaning of any observation. He is perfectly happy to accept observations offered so long as we do not jump to conclusions about what those observations were - or what explains them.



Again - suggesting all the possible alternatives for data is a good and scientific approach. Jumping to one conclusion and rubbishing the suggestions other people offer is a bad approach. Again this means it is your nonsense not his here.

The entire process behind how and why we went looking for a Planet X and a Planet 9 are a good example here. People spent years looking for it before one person noticed that one observatory had faulty data and one probe gave us a more accurate reading of the mass of neptune.

Humans are flawed and our technology is too. Radar for example has had a checkered history and we constantly seek to improve it. When our electronics give us a result we can not understand we should absolutely look into that - and we should absolutely consider technology failure as _one_ of the explanations to work with.

That you want to dismiss one line of inquiry - while he wants to keep open all lines of inquiry - against support my contention that it is you pushing nonsense here not him.



Then you know very little about him because that is the approach he uses quite often. He speaks often about how humans do not know - and the excitement behind our drive to find out.

As I said in an earlier post - New data is exciting. The quest to explain new data is even more exciting. Jumping to conclusions about that data is boring as fkkk.



And you close off with personal insults. Quelle Surprise there.

He's at best extremely closed minded for a scientist and values his own opinion over even acknowledging the evidence put before him.

Webster Definition of Arrogance:
Exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner an arrogant official.

His video is now on 108,000 views. I'd imagine this will only pour petrol on... close your eyes for this... his arrogance and we'll be seeing more from him in the coming weeks as he clearly has a lot that value his thoughts and jokes which he laughs at himself. Fool.

Kunta Kinte

Rhys Essien wrote: »

The sad reality is that the vast majority of people still treat the subject as complete balderdash. And if people actually see something in the sky that they can’t explain they tend to keep it to themselves. Typical example from a few weeks ago on the Neil Prendeville radio show and only for him bringing up the subject and asking people to call in with their stories, we then heard of three different sightings over different parts of Cork, two of which described a type of craft and the other an orb. The caller describing the cigar shaped craft I found very intriguing.

These sightings were all in the last few months.Now did any of them make any websites....Not that I saw. Did any of them make the local papers...again not that I saw. Did they make the news on TV3 or RTÉ....not a chance.

Makes you wonder about how much unusual stuff is wizzing around in the sky that we never hear about and that’s only over this country.

Which parts of Cork? The city or county or both?

steddyeddy

the purple tin wrote: »

A lot of people calling themselves 'skeptics' are misusing the term. Look up Pyrrho, he says a skeptic is someone who is willing to admit that they don't know.

People like Mick West would be more in the Aristotle school: know-it-alls who have to have an explanation for everything, often an absurd explanation that has no basis in reality.

Thank you. Mick West isn't a scientist nor does he think like a scientist. He maintains all of these incidents have prosaic explanations.

In science we start from the point of "not knowing" until we get enough data and even then we'll rarely say we know something well. There's even elements in well studied systems such as enzymes that aren't easily explained even today.

Mick has stated that there's nothing to these sightings that are unknown. He'll then make the facts fit his hypothesis that these objects are "balloons, flares" or anything else. The idea that this is something currently unexplained is something completely unacceptable to this man. The explanations he comes up with to counter this are so complex they require a greater sense of belief than the alien explanation. For instance in the Nimitz incident 4 pilots and 3 radar operators recorded an object exhibiting advanced acceleration and speeds.

Mick's explanation is that all 4 made a mistake at the same time the radar operators made a mistake at the same time the radars broke, while the FLIR image recorded a balloon.

He's also debated airforce pilots and stated that they're misunderstanding their controls.

He's a dogmatic sceptic and I would happily describe him as someone whose belief system clouds their cognitive abilities.

Fuzzyduzzy

Fuzzyduzzy wrote: »

He's at best extremely closed minded for a scientist and values his own opinion over even acknowledging the evidence put before him.

Well you started by saying that his words in the video were "Nonsense" and then when called to explain that - you have not actually shown anything he has said to be nonsense.

So now you appear to be abandoning that in favour of attacking his character instead. But I suspect if I ask you to explain that - you will similarly fail. But let us try all the same. What has he said or done that shows him to be close minded exactly? Where has he valued his own opinion over evidence exactly?

Or is getting annoyed at the sense of humour of others - and name calling - all you have?

Rhys Essien wrote: »

These sightings were all in the last few months.

The "tone" you say that in makes it sound huge. But considering the number of people in a city of that size and the time frame involved - it is the opposite. It is hardly anything at all.

That so many people - over such a stretched period of time - would occasionally see something that they themselves can not explain - is statistically uninteresting to be honest.