Dion - it's interesting that you bring up the medical effects of those who have health issues after claiming to come into close contact with UFO/UAPs.
Stanford pathologist Dr. Gary Nolan was interviewed by Vice in December about health effects on the brain from anomalous materials. The interesting part to me was that of his patient group, the effects were similar to what has been also in the news as people suffering the effects of "Havana Syndrome".
Note that Lue Elizondo has also said in recent interviews that there are a relatively high percentage of experiencers (those who come in contact with UAP) that suffer from medical issues, and some servicemen have died (from exposure). He has also been asked about Havana Syndrome and says he's not authorized to talk about whether there is a connection or not.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
I don't want this to turn into a dogpile on Snuffleupagus, because dogpiles are no fun and don't lend itself to quality discussion, but just some comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus
This UFO got lots of attention in Columbia, news stations carried it and has a large amount of hits on youtube
Was the attention a result of the content, or the person reporting it? The person who shot the video is a big celebrity in Colombia. I'm not sure the video has garnered much attention through youtube as it only has 236,000 views. Conversely, the CNBC report on the tic tac UFO - the start of this thread - has over 2,080,000 views.
Personally, I think this video is pretty poor and quickly to debunk. It looks like a fly moving in the frame. Not overly convincing at all, and if it were not shot by a very famous person, probably would have been quickly dismissed and ignored. Because this was shot by a famous person and could lead to quick clicks or traffic, the media is naturally driven to pick it up without first vetting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers
Uhhhhh that was one of the worst “ufo” videos I’ve ever seen… yeah it looked a bug. One of the first questions anyone asks or looks into is if the video is a bug. It’s the most likely answer in every ufo video.
I don’t see how posts like this are either helpful or interesting. Did you find the first video convincing? Was this really a popular video somewhere? Or are you just being a bit of a jerk now?
I can understand the desire to post the video. It's a quick hit and can show how hysteria can develop through media repetition. Unfortunately, this does not appear to have those earmarks. So I can understand your skepticism and questioning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus
I don't find any UFO video convincing if it means aliens on this planet, ET would have to touch me with his red index finger before I ever believe aliens are here.
That's not skepticism. You've actually just moved beyond even cynicism and straight to denialism. Michael Shermer would agree with this, suggesting we guard against this when he said, "Skepticism is integral to the scientific process, because most claims turn out to be false. Weeding out the few kernels of wheat from the large pile of chaff requires extensive observation, careful experimentation and cautious inference. Science is skepticism and good scientists are skeptical. Denial is different. It is the automatic gainsaying of a claim regardless of the evidence for it - sometimes even in the teeth of evidence. Denialism is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the commitment to the belief takes precedence over the evidence. Belief comes first, reasons for belief follow, and those reasons are winnowed to ensure that the belief survives intact."
The fact that it would require ET probe you personally, that is denialism.
Quote:
I posted that particular vids because apparently a lot of dummies believed it was a UFO. It was shown on news stations and the fellow who made it was trusted because he was a well known news reporter.
I don't see much support for this claim. Googlefoo seems to show the Colombian media jumping on this just because of who reported it, not the quality of the content itself. Celebrity made this of interest.
Quote:
My point is people are gullible, whether it be bugs, flares, aircraft out of focus or hoaxes people jump on these things because they want to believe. It's like religion.
So is denial, and as Shermer said, even more so in many cases. My challenge with skepticism, cynicism, and denialists, is it is really easy to take the negative position in any argument. You always get to play the "prove it" card, while providing zero proof yourself. The skeptic always gets to provide weak theory without proving anything conclusively. They just need to cloud the issue enough to make something appear to be on shaky ground, or less than believable. This type of skepticism has found its way into the academy as well, because proving something happens/is happening is much more difficult than taking the negative position and proving it doesn't.
Quote:
There's a reason there has not been one compelling piece of evidence that these UFO's are from aliens.
What would be compelling to you? Clear makings on the ground after a purported landing? Burn makes in the ground or foliage? Changes in the chemical makeup of the soil? Exothermic evidence in soil? Radiation spikes in the samples? I mean beyond the personal probing from ET, what would make you open your mind to the possibility?
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
I was only interested in commenting in this thread when Lanny said he could link hard evidence that alien encounters were real. Since that was, to be generous, extreme hyperbole, I suppose I will go back to lurking, if the consensus is that this thread is for UFO porn and the unspoken but universal longing to one day bang an alien.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
What would be compelling to you? Clear makings on the ground after a purported landing? Burn makes in the ground or foliage? Changes in the chemical makeup of the soil? Exothermic evidence in soil? Radiation spikes in the samples? I mean beyond the personal probing from ET, what would make you open your mind to the possibility?
This sounds like physical evidence in a peer reviewed study.
Since the "skeptic" community's invocation of "false memories" has precluded much of the psychological data, would evidence reported and researched by the government be considered satisfactory? Of course, we'd then have to be concerned about which labs ran the tests on samples, and whether the government gave samples to independent interests to run their own labs, so I'll go out on a limb here and say the "skeptic" community will consider that unsatisfactory as well. Only a full-on anal probing by ET to each member of the "skeptic" community will be considered as quality physical evidence, and only then if it comes with a video of the procedure, properly notarized immediately upon completion. Yup, I can see why there are so many people who do not believe man landed on the moon. Unless it happens to me, or I see it firsthand, it didn't happen.
Surely you can understand why there is skepticism though? The video posted recently with the white lines that is a decade old, and randomly sent to someone with no info. Like, is the standard of evidence so low that qualifies as being accepted with no skepticism? Or the magnesium pieces that were investigated. Just sent to some guy with no contact info or ability to follow up?
Since the "skeptic" community's invocation of "false memories" has precluded much of the psychological data, would evidence reported and researched by the government be considered satisfactory? Of course, we'd then have to be concerned about which labs ran the tests on samples, and whether the government gave samples to independent interests to run their own labs, so I'll go out on a limb here and say the "skeptic" community will consider that unsatisfactory as well. Only a full-on anal probing by ET to each member of the "skeptic" community will be considered as quality physical evidence, and only then if it comes with a video of the procedure, properly notarized immediately upon completion. Yup, I can see why there are so many people who do not believe man landed on the moon. Unless it happens to me, or I see it firsthand, it didn't happen.
I think this is more about your motte and Bailey show then anything else.
Surely you can understand why there is skepticism though? The video posted recently with the white lines that is a decade old, and randomly sent to someone with no info. Like, is the standard of evidence so low that qualifies as being accepted with no skepticism? Or the magnesium pieces that were investigated. Just sent to some guy with no contact info or ability to follow up?
Oh no, I get the skepticism. I'm a skeptic. I am very much a "prove it" guy, and my posting history is more than enough proof of that. I'm considered a curmudgeon because I'm skeptical of everything. What I am seeing here is more cynicism and some denialism. It's hard to take much of this subject forward because it is considered taboo in many circles, which has always made me scratch my head. If you won't explore all ideas and have to build walls around ideas, are you really examining all possibilities and maintaining that open mind?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I think this is more about your motte and Bailey show then anything else.
No, it's about the self-proclaimed skeptics looking down the nose of anything they don't want to consider and then dismissing it. Why would I present information that you've already said is not worthy of review? That's the game skeptics play. Just look at your own behaviors here. List some researchers, then attack their work and credibility. Try to focus on the findings, then attack the lack of complete lab reports. Counter than summaries are acceptable, then attack the labs themselves. Los Alamos was not a good enough lab to review physical evidence. Los ####ing Alamos! That sort of said everything right there. There was never going to be anything to satisfy you at that point. So please save your judgmental bull####, as you're one of those people that has gone beyond skepticism and is well into cynicism. You're a true disbeliever and you wear the badge with honor.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 03-07-2022 at 12:58 PM.
Not sure about everything else, but I’m sure a little bit of anal probing with ET might help. Get someone back there who knows what they’re doing and you can make a man believe in God, never mind aliens.
What would be compelling to you? Clear makings on the ground after a purported landing? Burn makes in the ground or foliage? Changes in the chemical makeup of the soil? Exothermic evidence in soil? Radiation spikes in the samples? I mean beyond the personal probing from ET, what would make you open your mind to the possibility?
All these things can be man made, my mind is open but only if there's something found that's clearly extraterrestrial, crashed spaceship, alien body ..etc.
Lights in the sky, purported abductions,sightings and silly ancient alien tv shows do nothing for me.
The Following User Says Thank You to Snuffleupagus For This Useful Post:
While not as sexy, would progressive government policies on transparency and disclosure protocols be interesting to people? Or are we only interested in butt play with aliens in their shiny crafts?
Because the former is more likely than the latter.
And the former is more likely to lead to the latter.
Ozy, that's where I think we find the confirmation we are looking for. Disclosure is more likely to provide the support needed more so than something being covered via the traditional media.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Transparency which leads to more data would be necessary to be able to better evaluate given data.
It could lead to being able to differentiate between something that's an in-camera artifact and something that's real. It could lead to being able to differentiate between something that's close and something that's further away. Or something that's moving due to the camera moving or actually moving in reality. Or being able to verify that two observations are observing the same thing.
In an ideal world we'd have telemetry data for all this (as would be done in scientific observations), but obviously military or civilian devices aren't going to be instrumented in such a way as to gather all the necessary data, but it still would be helpful to have all the relevant data that there is.
If that means establishing a way to flag such data for being stored for later disclosure sure.
If nothing else it would help differentiate between stuff that's actually interesting and misinterpretation of mundane phenomenon.
Because ultimately if I find a hoof print in my yard it COULD be evidence of a unicorn, or a zebra, but it's probably not, but if I have more data that shows it couldn't be a horse that's more interesting.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Interesting comments photon. I think there is a ton of that telemetry data that could support claims but suppressed. It would be awesome for that data to see the light of day, but I think that's the type of data that is released last. Anything that could corroborate sightings and possible landings/crashes is exactly the type of data held close to the vest.
My advice when you find that hoof print in your yard, look for the sunshine and sprinkles in the poop that is also sure to be found in close proximity. Everything that comes out of a unicorn is bathed in sunshine and sprinkles.
That's what UAPx and the Harvard-based Galileo Project are for. Both are non-governmental entities with money and resources behind the research. UAPx is expected to make a large dump of data they've captured later this year. I think the whole point was a grassroots effort to circumvent classified research and gather the data directly. One such method in doing so is tracking telemetry around electromagnetic spectrums and electromagnetic frequencies.
Even some names like Lue Elizondo and Chris Mellon have joined the Galileo Project to contribute their skillsets, in addition to a variety of other former military folks, scientists and researchers.
All this while the UAP Task Force will have a report due in October of this year.
I think the whole file is going to take another big step forward in 2022. And no, that doesn't necessarily mean wheeling out a flying saucer and having an alien pop out inviting us to the Galactic Federation.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
Oh no, I get the skepticism. I'm a skeptic. I am very much a "prove it" guy, and my posting history is more than enough proof of that. I'm considered a curmudgeon because I'm skeptical of everything. What I am seeing here is more cynicism and some denialism. It's hard to take much of this subject forward because it is considered taboo in many circles, which has always made me scratch my head. If you won't explore all ideas and have to build walls around ideas, are you really examining all possibilities and maintaining that open mind?
No, it's about the self-proclaimed skeptics looking down the nose of anything they don't want to consider and then dismissing it. Why would I present information that you've already said is not worthy of review? That's the game skeptics play. Just look at your own behaviors here. List some researchers, then attack their work and credibility. Try to focus on the findings, then attack the lack of complete lab reports. Counter than summaries are acceptable, then attack the labs themselves. Los Alamos was not a good enough lab to review physical evidence. Los ####ing Alamos! That sort of said everything right there. There was never going to be anything to satisfy you at that point. So please save your judgmental bull####, as you're one of those people that has gone beyond skepticism and is well into cynicism. You're a true disbeliever and you wear the badge with honor.
Bailey - People with memories of UFOs abductions means the event occurred
Motte -People with motors of UFO abductions have memories that the event occurred
Bailey - I have peer reviewed studies of physical evidence
Motte - here’s a data dump of peer reviewed research of many different things that aren’t physical evidence and links to people who have done everything they can not to have evidence peer reviewed. Skeptics won’t believe it anyway so I won’t produce the studies I have.
That is pretty compelling evidence. I mean the son passing a lie detector test, saying that he believes that his father believed his claims. I mean, what else do we need right? And a nurse that said there was a terrible smell, as if we needed more.
But, just for the sake of trying to present both sides, you know what else stinks, and looks horrible? Burned bodies.
