• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Sigh.

It would be nice if one of these objects would suddenly veer toward us, fly several times around the Earth, then blast the moon with lasers writing for all to see in giant letters the phrase, "It's never aliens," and then fly off to the stars.
 
arthwollipot said:
As Steven Novella says, the entire phenomenon exists in the ambiguity of blurry photos and videos. We don't have any clear photos of UFOs, because in a clear photo, you can see what it is. We have plenty of clear photos of things up in the sky, and none of them are alien spacecraft. Only the blurry ones can be used as "evidence".
Click to expand...
The McMinville disc photos of 1950, were pretty clear. I maybe not up to date with the latest analysis of this report and photographic evidence, but back then in the Condon report, the conclusion was that the disc could have been either a model hung from a wire, or an "extraordinary" aerial object.

The photos showed a disc with a strange off centre conning tower style protuberance on the top surface, not straight up as in a submarine, but at a bent angle. In 1954, a similar disc, with bent conning tower was seen in Rouen in France, although this was a poorer shot. Inevitably, UFO enthusiasm turned this into probably one of the most famous examples, due to the clarity of the McMinville photographs.

The debate on whether or not we have had, or will ever have, alien visitation, surely hangs on four basic factors. Firstly, the likelihood of life on other planets in the universe. Secondly, if intelligent life does exist elsewhere, does it have the technical knowledge, materials etc, to travel astronomical distances? Thirdly, if 1. and 2. have positive answers, have those beings detected our earth through some means, and fourthly, if they have, are they interested enough in our planet to warrant the undertaking of travelling those astronomical distance to take a closer look?

For me, it all boils down to curiosity, a basic quality of us humans here on Earth. If this trait is exclusive to humans, then it is probably unlikely that we have had, or will ever have, alien visitations. If science and technology are a function of curiosity, which arguably it is, then aliens wherever they are if they indeed exist, have or will have technology if they possess that human trait of curiosity. Given aeons of time, this could lead to the development of hitherto unknown physics and methodology, if any civilisation could survive other environmental pressures. Logically, I don't think we can totally rule out alien visitation altogether, but there are many ifs and buts, that make it unlikely. However, that same curiosity will continue to encourage speculation, rightly or wrongly, with or without compelling evidence.
 
Apathia said:
Here we go again!

Avi Loeb presents a new interstellar craft.
Click to expand...
First point in his blog post:
1. The retrograde orbital plane (defined by the orbital angular momentum vector) of 3I/ATLAS around the Sun lies within 5 degrees of that of Earth — the so-called ecliptic plane. The likelihood for that coincidence out of all random orientations is 0.2%.
Click to expand...
Has anyone ever explained Bayesian inference to Dr. Loeb?

5. 3I/ATLAS achieves perihelion on the opposite side of the Sun relative to Earth. This could be intentional to avoid detailed observations from Earth-based telescopes when the object is brightest or when gadgets are sent to Earth from that hidden vantage point.
Click to expand...
Those sneaky aliens! They made it pass on the opposite side of the Sun to hide it from us, but didn't think to paint it black.

ETA: he even invokes Pascal's wager.
 
Last edited:
Explorer said:
The McMinville disc photos of 1950, were pretty clear. I maybe not up to date with the latest analysis of this report and photographic evidence, but back then in the Condon report, the conclusion was that the disc could have been either a model hung from a wire, or an "extraordinary" aerial object.

The photos showed a disc with a strange off centre conning tower style protuberance on the top surface, not straight up as in a submarine, but at a bent angle. In 1954, a similar disc, with bent conning tower was seen in Rouen in France, although this was a poorer shot. Inevitably, UFO enthusiasm turned this into probably one of the most famous examples, due to the clarity of the McMinville photographs.
Click to expand...
You mean this?

Trent1_600dpi.jpg

(source: Wikimedia Commons)


That's a looong way from "clear".

Explorer said:
The debate on whether or not we have had, or will ever have, alien visitation, surely hangs on four basic factors. Firstly, the likelihood of life on other planets in the universe. Secondly, if intelligent life does exist elsewhere, does it have the technical knowledge, materials etc, to travel astronomical distances? Thirdly, if 1. and 2. have positive answers, have those beings detected our earth through some means, and fourthly, if they have, are they interested enough in our planet to warrant the undertaking of travelling those astronomical distance to take a closer look?
Click to expand...

That third one is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting there.

Explorer said:
For me, it all boils down to curiosity, a basic quality of us humans here on Earth. If this trait is exclusive to humans, then it is probably unlikely that we have had, or will ever have, alien visitations. If science and technology are a function of curiosity, which arguably it is, then aliens wherever they are if they indeed exist, have or will have technology if they possess that human trait of curiosity. Given aeons of time, this could lead to the development of hitherto unknown physics and methodology, if any civilisation could survive other environmental pressures. Logically, I don't think we can totally rule out alien visitation altogether, but there are many ifs and buts, that make it unlikely. However, that same curiosity will continue to encourage speculation, rightly or wrongly, with or without compelling evidence.
Click to expand...

That's not curiosity. Curiosity is looking for evidence and critically examining the evidence to see what it actually shows, and following the evidence to its logical conclusion.

Photos have been curiously examined from many angles for decades now, and none of them have shown definitive evidence of alien visitation. Including the McMinville photos.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"That's not curiosity. Curiosity is looking for evidence and critically examining the evidence to see what it actually shows, and following the evidence to its logical conclusion."

Have to vehemently disagree with that statement.

Looking for evidence and examining evidence, comes after curiosity.

Without curiosity as a precursor, there would be no motivation for the search of evidence through experimentation.
 
Last edited:
Explorer said:
"That's not curiosity. Curiosity is looking for evidence and critically examining the evidence to see what it actually shows, and following the evidence to its logical conclusion."

Have to vehemently disagree with that statement.

Looking for evidence and examining evidence, comes after curiosity.

Without curiosity as a precursor, there would be no motivation for the search of evidence through experimentation.
Click to expand...
Without evidence, curiosity is nothing but mental masturbation.
 
Explorer said:
The McMinville disc photos of 1950, were pretty clear. I maybe not up to date with the latest analysis of this report and photographic evidence, but back then in the Condon report, the conclusion was that the disc could have been either a model hung from a wire, or an "extraordinary" aerial object.

The photos showed a disc with a strange off centre conning tower style protuberance on the top surface, not straight up as in a submarine, but at a bent angle. In 1954, a similar disc, with bent conning tower was seen in Rouen in France, although this was a poorer shot. Inevitably, UFO enthusiasm turned this into probably one of the most famous examples, due to the clarity of the McMinville photographs.

The debate on whether or not we have had, or will ever have, alien visitation, surely hangs on four basic factors. Firstly, the likelihood of life on other planets in the universe. Secondly, if intelligent life does exist elsewhere, does it have the technical knowledge, materials etc, to travel astronomical distances? Thirdly, if 1. and 2. have positive answers, have those beings detected our earth through some means, and fourthly, if they have, are they interested enough in our planet to warrant the undertaking of travelling those astronomical distance to take a closer look?

For me, it all boils down to curiosity, a basic quality of us humans here on Earth. If this trait is exclusive to humans, then it is probably unlikely that we have had, or will ever have, alien visitations. If science and technology are a function of curiosity, which arguably it is, then aliens wherever they are if they indeed exist, have or will have technology if they possess that human trait of curiosity. Given aeons of time, this could lead to the development of hitherto unknown physics and methodology, if any civilisation could survive other environmental pressures. Logically, I don't think we can totally rule out alien visitation altogether, but there are many ifs and buts, that make it unlikely. However, that same curiosity will continue to encourage speculation, rightly or wrongly, with or without compelling evidence.
Click to expand...
You mean the well known and obvious McMinnville hoax photos.
 
arthwollipot said:
Without evidence, curiosity is nothing but mental masturbation.
Click to expand...
I wasn't trying to to impart any quality to the word "curiosity" only that it is an essential precursor to research and experimentation. It is pretty obvious to anyone with a brain, that without that human trait, nothing of any level of merit would follow. To deny this is frankly, daft.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
You mean the well known and obvious McMinnville hoax photos.
Click to expand...
Whether or not it was a hoax, and I did mention this as it was considered a possibility in the Condon report, was not the subject matter of my post, it was only concerning the relative clarity of the shots, I think three in all were produced., compared to many others. I am not suggesting that it was the alternative, i.e. an extraordinary aerial object.
 
Explorer said:
I wasn't trying to to impart any quality to the word "curiosity" only that it is an essential precursor to research and experimentation. It is pretty obvious to anyone with a brain, that without that human trait, nothing of any level of merit would follow. To deny this is frankly, daft.
Click to expand...
I'm not denying it. Masturbation can be fun. But unless you follow through, it's rather pointless.
 
steenkh said:
OK, I should have said “research”.
Click to expand...
Still no. What use is research without evidence? What are you researching?

Look, I'm a fan of idle curiosity. It's fun, I enjoy being curious about stuff for the simple pleasure of learning something new. But if what I learn isn't backed up with evidence, it's not only useless, it could be dangerous.

So if you're curious about something, you should be curious enough to get to the bottom of it. Sometimes the bottom of it is "that's a fuzzy blob that I can't identify", and that's okay. What's not okay is thinking that this is sufficient evidence to believe that it's a picture of an alien spaceship.
 
arthwollipot said:
I'm not denying it. Masturbation can be fun. But unless you follow through, it's rather pointless.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about not following through? Not me.

Curiosity in itself is a only a description and a dimension of motivation, nothing more nothing less. Without motivation of course the feeling would be sterile, but that is for a completely different debate.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom