dre wrote:

Peter wrote:

FDISK wrote:

No sir you don't have a life you just debunk things but you dont read
OR look at the video I just went to the website I can get to it...
Maybe you don't hvae Windows Media Player installed????? It will not
open if you dont

You did NOT look at my evidence you only spout the same media bullshit
sir.....fuzzy pictures? Really? Have you watched the 3 hour video
no...have you watched the testimony of those witnesses who can prove
what they did? NO....you only come back with more excuses....I have
done research into this field for over 44 yrs and I have heard it all
and run into alot of folks with your attitude...Remember the media
trains you not to listen to the man on the street because ONLY THEY can
tell you anything....well you get nothing from the controlled media or
have you not figured that out yet?

Have fun playing games....

It is a waste of time to try and convince him otherwise.

Here is a little parable if you will. I knew a guy who one night was called out front to witness some strange lights in the sky. Now the lights (2 of them) were quite far apart and in the direction of the airport.

He turned to his sister who had called him and said: "Ah yeah, it's just  a plane. See those are the lights on the wing tips. It doesn't look like it is moving because it is heading away from us. And see how one is lower than the other, clearly it is starting to bank for a turn to the airport."

All very plausible (well everyone there was convinced). And totally wrong. For starters, the lights were in the same position for 15 minutes, the airport was 10 km away (do the maths if you consider the lights were 5 degrees apart), the lights did not blink at all. Turned out next day the airport staff were observing the same lights and were mystified.

Since I happened to be the debunker in that case (well I was only 15), I learned a few lessons which later exposure to scientific ideas reinforced:

    * plausibility isn't worth anything, you must have a falsifiable test
    * anyone can make up a plausible explanation for anything and be wrong
    * people who make up explanations do not apply the same rigour to their ideas as they demand of others.

Well yeah that's about it. I don't mind skepticism, but usually it isn't skepticism ... it is pig-headedness. Which you see too often in the scientific community.

regards
Pete

but what WHAS it then?
a light on a balloons gives the same effect,with people giving totally different witness accounts...
yellow lights,green lights...
and they are CONVINCED it is an alien craft...
but it's only a stupid balloon from a hoaxer...
and why must we accept in advance it is an alien craft?
why always use the most unlikely explanation?


if it's unexplainable,it must be alien is the thinking of believers...
even the isstation is a  ufo  these days,it's a light and moving fast,sooooo? a ufo!

and most people dont even know or understand the things they see,but they HAVE an opinion about it.
and since hollywood makes sf movies those explanations are of an alien kind...
coincidence?ofcourse not.

No. If it is unexplainable it is unidentified. That is what UFO means. Alien spacecraft are one explanation. To be even considered the lights must behave very oddly.

Now I didn't say I regarded these particular lights as "aliens". Considering the distance and all they were several kilometres apart and fairly bright and unmoving. Obviously not an ordinary plane since the air traffic control themselves were mystified. What were they? I have no idea ... but I hardly think that "lights on balloons" is the answer ... or maybe swamp gas (the event happened at about 9pm and the lights would have been over the ocean).

Of course people have an opinion about it, that is the natural state of affairs. The current objective view is not a common situation in the history of mankind. However, I have found that most scientifically trained people are not objective about this topic ... it is taboo (well it would be lethal to their careers). Think back to the attitude of the scientific community to ball lightning ... society probably thinks that scientists have accepted this for years ... not so, it has been as controversial and frowned upon for about 200 years ... only recently has it become quasi-respectable. Ironic really, just like UFOs researchers have to rely on 'sightings' and there is no consistent model and it can't be duplicated in the labs (I can just hear the claims "yes it can" ... no it can't! ... a ball of glowing plasma isn't the same). But I digress.

People, and scientists, will apply the available models to whatever they do not understand. When human beings had metallurgy but didn't understand the mind they compared the heart/mind to a furnace. When machines came on the scene, we had the idea of a clockwork mind ... and now in the age of computers we compare the mind to software (probably also wrong since the brain isn't a von Neumann machine). So in the past these phenomena were considered to be gods, "glowing shields", spirits, Nazi secret weapons, Russian secret weapons, Aliens. Aliens probably has more going for it though, but I wouldn't say it is the answer, though there are so many kinds of reports there are lots of possibilities.

To quote Hynek (badly): "Scientists should remember just as there will be a 21st century physics there will be a 31st century physics".

regards,
Peter