UFO: footages, disclosure, archaeological anomalies

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

And the witnesses heard no sound.

Even tough that is debatable, just because you have heard no sound it doesn't mean that it wasn't there.

A turbofan is a type of jet engine. And i was talking about the 7 aircraft in the "THADA" picture.

1. Not really. And I will leave it at that.
2. I never said that the particular planes in the picture were the ones responsible (this ofcourseif my hypotesis is to hold).

The reports i'm talking about were made at the very night.

They could have been made 5 seconds after, it doesn't mean that they haven't tricked themselfs into a false story due to miss interpretation of the actual happenings.

I'm also not forgetting that the nearby military base had been existent for 50+ years. For all those years of military aircraft passing by, why would hundreds of the people suddenly react to what you think is the case, in the way they did, specially on that day? For them, the phenomenon was extremely unusual.

Because hundreds of people is a gross missrepresentation, there is only 1 footage by the way, if there were that many people much more would have been likely to exist. And the fact that they don't and that for most this incident went unoticed says much, because probably it didn't looked like an alien visitation from a closer prespective but rather a non trivial military operation which nobody else cared.

Ghost Knight, these aren't the V lights in the first place. The video footage of the V lights is here.

Oh, so now they aren't the ones, right...I can play along. But you are still missing this:

Even tough planes have a wingspan that would partialy obscure the space between, and even tough the fact the the lights would obfuscate any reference in a particularly dark background, I don't think that is the proper justifications. They have never seen anything blocking out the path of stars in the spaces in between even tough they have reported it. They have reported it to be so despite the fact despite the fact that it never happen, they are just convicted that it was so when they try to recal the experience which in itself was aready biased by the ilusion that it was single entity when they tryed to recognise the form (and the mind plays a trick on you, specialy on a black background and the object isn't visible).

And that your judgement has continualy failed to grasp a know explenation before leaping into into crazy ones. Could it be that alien visitation is only in your head?

I don't know if aliens have visited this planet.

That was not the question, the question was in a nutshel, could it be that it is all in your head?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Here's the best video I could find with minimal effort:



The real video starts about 40 seconds in. We can see the flares lighting up one by one in a straight line with a descending curve; exactly what I would expect flares being dropped off a moving airplane would look like. Comparing the lights to the city lights below and assuming the cameraman was relatively stationary, they don't seem to have any significant lateral motion.

Aparently I haven't been paying to much attention, but this is a very good observation.

 

[borrofburi]

This is the same failure of logic the theists fall into, namely that of some crazy false dichotomy. In this case it's: either we can explain it or aliens are real and have come to earth and did it... Err... no.

Putting words in my mouth.

Yet you are asking us to prove that aliens didn't do it.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

To be perfectly clear I am not disproving the unexistance of aliens. What I am doing is to show that the observations are naturaly biased and that there are well known reasons why you should expect such phenomena which are far more likely than alien visitation. Making the hypotesis of alien visitation unbased and without merit or minimal justification.

Carry on.

 

[mirandansa]

And the witnesses heard no sound.

Even tough that is debatable, just because you have heard no sound it doesn't mean that it wasn't there.

Just because i said "the witnesses heard no sound" doesn't mean that i was arguing for the absolute silence of the lights.

The reports i'm talking about were made at the very night.

They could have been made 5 seconds after, it doesn't mean that they haven't tricked themselfs into a false story due to miss interpretation of the actual happenings.

Hundreds of people misinterpreting the same phenomenon at the same time? That's possible, but not necessarily probable.

I'm also not forgetting that the nearby military base had been existent for 50+ years. For all those years of military aircraft passing by, why would hundreds of the people suddenly react to what you think is the case, in the way they did, specially on that day? For them, the phenomenon was extremely unusual.

Because hundreds of people is a gross missrepresentation,

As the documentaries show, there are literally hundreds of phone records at the police stations from the night.

there is only 1 footage by the way, if there were that many people much more would have been likely to exist. And the fact that they don't and that for most this incident went unoticed says much, because probably it didn't looked like an alien visitation from a closer prespective but rather a non trivial military operation which nobody else cared.

We can only speculate about what the V lights were.

I don't know if aliens have visited this planet.

That was not the question, the question was in a nutshel, could it be that it is all in your head?

When did you stop beating your wife?

 

[mirandansa]

Putting words in my mouth.

Yet you are asking us to prove that aliens didn't do it.

"Prove"? When? Where?

You are confusing "a non-alien explanation" with "a disproof of alien explanations". Offering a non-alien explanation doesn't mean disproving alien explanations.

 

[mirandansa]

To be perfectly clear I am not disproving the unexistance of aliens.

Right, the existence/nonexistence of aliens is not the main topic of this thread.

What I am doing is to show that the observations are naturaly biased

... which i don't necessarily deny.

and that there are well known reasons why you should expect such phenomena which are far more likely than alien visitation. Making the hypotesis of alien visitation unbased and without merit or minimal justification.

I have never intended to present the Phoenix Lights as any basis for alien visitation. It's a UFO incident implying a possible military secrecy. What i have been asking is: What are these lights? Has the military been honest about it?

The more explicit bases for the alien visitation hypothesis are to be found in some of the testimonies from the Disclosure Project and in archaeological anomalies.

(Also, "the visitors", if any, don't have to be extraterrestrial. They could be terrestrial beings from a distant future, for instance.)

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Just because i said "the witnesses heard no sound" doesn't mean that i was arguing for the absolute silence of the lights.

Nor have I said that they even needed to be really low to miss it (even tough it helps).
I have presented the hypotesis of plane formation. You tryed to eliminated that alternative by arguing that the engines would produce a audible enough sound which the witness reported not to hear it. I then replyed that even granting you the proposition that it should produce a audible sound, a eye witness testimony is not a relaible enough because such details are easily lost.
You can cast it in whatever light you want, but the fact is your chalendge has been meth.

Hundreds of people misinterpreting the same phenomenon at the same time? That's possible, but not necessarily probable.

Just because a biased sensationalist report has reported to have several eye witness testimonies it doesn't mean that such comment is an acurrate representation. Even if they are, what you think it is likely or not has no bearing in reality, in fact it is likely that several people make the same misrepresentation since people generaly tend to think alike (more then what we would want) and if one makes a mistake everyone else in the same circumstance will most like make the same mistake.

As the documentaries show, there are literally hundreds of phone records at the police stations from the night.

"As the documentary claims" is actualy a more accurate statment.

We can only speculate about what the V lights were.

So why would we speculate aliens? can you justify that.

When did you stop beating your wife?

I don't have a wife. Besides if you are saying if that I have missrepresented you by assuming that you are inclined to believe in alien visitation, then that would be inconsistent with what you are arguing.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Has the military been honest about it?

Probably not, but there are reasons not to be honest about it, and those doesn't involve unwordly or highly sofisticated reasons.

The more explicit bases for the alien visitation hypothesis are to be found in some of the testimonies from the Disclosure Project and in archaeological anomalies.

If that is all you have then you got nothing.

 

[mirandansa]

if you are saying if that I have missrepresented you by assuming that you are inclined to believe in alien visitation, then that would be inconsistent with what you are arguing.

I don't believe aliens have visited this planet. I consider it a possibility, not a fact.

If i argue for the alien visitation hypothesis on this thread, that's just for the sake of argument. I play the role of an arguer so that you can play the role of a counter-arguer. But you don't necessarily have to either prove or disprove the hypothesis. I expect you to present any relevant information (including a thought circulating your brain) so that we can mutually advance/develop our understanding of the subject.

In fact, if you surf around YouTube, you might find some of my comments questioning some points made by alien visitation theorists. Again, that doesn't mean i reject the hypothesis. I argue for/against situationally, for the sake of the mutual development of our knowledge.

We can only speculate about what the V lights were.

So why would we speculate aliens? can you justify that.

The more explicit bases for the alien visitation hypothesis are to be found in some of the testimonies from the Disclosure Project and in archaeological anomalies.

If that is all you have then you got nothing.

I suspect you haven't actually looked into it.

 

[lrkun]

I see one problem which most atheists think is proper when it comes to the burden of proof. He who asserts has the burden of proving that it is true. The reason for this is that in a criminal case, the prosecution who is the state has all the resources to convict the defendant. But on the other hand, the defendant only has himself and his counsel or someone of whom the state assigned in his favor. It's actually false logic and shouldn't be used by analogy in a debate scenario.

It reminds me of a previous thread by 0 where I argued for the use of a scale.

I don't believe aliens have visited this planet. I consider it a possibility, not a fact.

This is how a scientific mind ought to view things, because when one considers the posibility, instead of assuming that it already does not exist, precludes the person from knowing the actual facts as to whether it exists, existed, or might exist eventually. Accordingly, it is subject to evidence.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Like I said, we're done. You keep bringing up anecdotes (which are NOT EVIDENCE), and now you've fallen into your old habit of comparing yourself with real scientists (people who PRODUCED EVIDENCE) who were ignored for a short time. The triangular formation was planes. The line of lights were flares. Produce EVIDENCE or stop talking.

 

[Lallapalalable]

Looks like a kite.

 

[borrofburi]

Yet you are asking us to prove that aliens didn't do it.

"Prove"? When? Where?

You are confusing "a non-alien explanation" with "a disproof of alien explanations". Offering a non-alien explanation doesn't mean disproving alien explanations.

Your inherent assumption is that if we can't provide a non-alien explanation then the truth is that it was aliens; we're back to that false dichotomy again, the one that forgoes "I don't know" in favor of "my magic X did it" (where things we don't necessarily know are then asserted to have been caused by X).

 

[lrkun]

Your inherent assumption is that if we can't provide a non-alien explanation then the truth is that it was aliens; we're back to that false dichotomy again, the one that forgoes "I don't know" in favor of "my magic X did it" (where things we don't necessarily know are then asserted to have been caused by X).

No. Because what Mirandansa is doing is looking for alternative explanations, likewise she didn't suggest that if ever there is no reason or explanation, then there must be aliens. What she proposes, aliens probably exist, not absolute certainty that aliens exist.

 

[mirandansa]

Like I said, we're done. You keep bringing up anecdotes (which are NOT EVIDENCE), and now you've fallen into your old habit of comparing yourself with real scientists (people who PRODUCED EVIDENCE) who were ignored for a short time.

What i compare myself with is the attentive audience of those ignored scientists, not necessarily the scientists themselves. When Faraday demonstrated an artificial electric current, some people laughed and ridiculed him by calling him a charlatan; others thought it was interesting and looked forward to more evidence. Likewise, i look forward to more evidence for this alien visitation hypothesis instead of ridiculing and dismissing it. Hence my support for the Disclosure Project calling for congressional hearings.

The triangular formation was planes. The line of lights were flares. Produce EVIDENCE or stop talking.

I don't know whether the triangular formation was planes and whether the line of lights were flares, since there is no conclusive evidence and the military has been failing to produce a proof of their own explanation even on demand. I also don't know it these were more exotic artefacts. And i can leave it at that. That's what i asked you earlier too.

 

[mirandansa]

Looks like a kite.

Yes, it does.

Another point to consider is that its profile looks like also the one captured by Endeavour in the outerspace.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Looks like a kite.

Yes, it does.

Another point to consider is that its profile looks like also the one captured by Endeavour in the outerspace.

Conspiracy theory logic. Can you prove any kind of link other then "It sorta looks the same"?

 

[mirandansa]

Your inherent assumption is that if we can't provide a non-alien explanation then the truth is that it was aliens; we're back to that false dichotomy again, the one that forgoes "I don't know" in favor of "my magic X did it" (where things we don't necessarily know are then asserted to have been caused by X).

If no non-alien hypotheses could fully explain the phenomena, that would mean that we could start investigating alien hypotheses, not that we could immediately conclude with an alien hypothesis.

Indeed, there is room for finding more evidence for alien hypotheses. The Disclosure Project has been collecting de-classified documents brought forward by retired military/government officers concerning the testified experiments and production of vehicles based on extraterrestrial technology; these documents contain the specifics of the military facilities in question. The project, joined by more than 500 ex-insiders, seeks to hold congressional hearings so that the President could initiate a public investigation into these facilities, where direct conclusive evidence for the alien visitation might or might not be discovered.


Here's an example of a sceptic who is supposed to initiate a good scientific view of things with his supposedly good critical thinking skills:



For him, two midair following cylinder lights are the light of Jupiter or an illusion. Talk about inherent assumption and false dichotomy. If this is how scepticism operates, it isn't science and i'm happy not being a sceptic.

 

[mirandansa]

Can you prove any kind of link other then "It sorta looks the same"?

Can you prove any kind of link other than "It sorta looks like a kite"?

There is no sufficient evidence for us to conclude either that it is identical to the one in Endeavour's photographs or that it is a kite.