The matter of UFO's is a real one

[JayUtah]

I'd be quite afraid and nerved to think that we are letting pilots into the sky if they could not tell the different between a star located beyond air space, and a real object in direct vision evading direct contact.

Then be afraid and unnerved. And go read some NTSB reports. The phenomenon to which I refer is very real and does indeed cause loss, damage, and death. It's real enough that all pilots are trained in how to recognize it and, if possible, avoid it.

But your fear doesn't change the picture of evidence which shows a pilot's subjective impression of the relative motion of his quarry at night is not a good standard by which to judge whether it is an intelligently controlled object or not. In the larger sense, the failure of some unknown object to conform to the observer's expectation or prediction is not a good argument in favor of a specific affirmative cause.

[Goldstone]

Your "fear" is irrelevant.

Have you ever heard of making a "mistake"?

When these objects are chased by more than one fighter pilot, under the control of the base who had tracked the objects down on radar systems, there is really not much room to believe they had seen and chased a star.

[JayUtah]

I'm sorry. I simply don't see any reason why ''personal definitions'' are even important here.

That's why you don't understand the debate. Go back and read the lengthy post you promised to respond to. It contains most of the answer.

You brought up Timothy Good's attempt to define "UFO," so it's disingenuous of you to try to back out of it now. As good a definition as it may be, he can't assume everyone who wrote "UFO" before his time and who writes it after his time is using it the same way. The entire UFO debate and all the rancor it engenders is precisely about how we interpret those three letters in some particular narrative. So I'm sorry, but it's not something you can just sweep away and pretend it doesn't matter.

[Goldstone]

But your fear doesn't change the picture of evidence which shows a pilot's subjective impression of the relative motion of his quarry at night is not a good standard by which to judge whether it is an intelligently controlled object or not. In the larger sense, the failure of some unknown object to conform to the observer's expectation or prediction is not a good argument in favor of a specific affirmative cause.

I believe the mind can play tricks yes... but surely this is not always the case, read my reply above. Certain cases refuse to be washed away with your usual conventional explanations.

[Goldstone]

That's why you don't understand the debate. Go back and read the lengthy post you promised to respond to. It contains most of the answer.

You brought up Timothy Good's attempt to define "UFO," so it's disingenuous of you to try to back out of it now. As good a definition as it may be, he can't assume everyone who wrote "UFO" before his time and who writes it after his time is using it the same way. The entire UFO debate and all the rancor it engenders is precisely about how we interpret those three letters in some particular narrative. So I'm sorry, but it's not something you can just sweep away and pretend it doesn't matter.

Well what else could have debus meant then????

[NEOWatcher]

I believe the mind can play tricks yes... but surely this is not always the case, read my reply above. Certain cases refuse to be washed away with your usual conventional explanations.

You keep relating to these recent posts and have yet to comment on or answer many previous posts and questions.

It seems to me that the only replies you make are the ones you can reply with only opinion and denial. You seem to be ignoring any of the questions that require any knowledge or supporting information to the reply.

Are you going to answer my previous questions?

[R.A.F.]

Stop replying to my personal contentions as if I am unaware of their being no proof towards these sensationalist claims of mine.

You sure seem to be stating these "sensationalistic claims" as if they were factual.

But I did say this when I was asked what my own personal beliefs where, but warned it was highly speculative.

So you have zero intention of "backing up" your claims?

[Goldstone]

You keep relating to these recent posts and have yet to comment on or answer many previous posts and questions.

It seems to me that the only replies you make are the ones you can reply with only opinion and denial. You seem to be ignoring any of the questions that require any knowledge or supporting information to the reply.

Are you going to answer my previous questions?

I discussed parts of your post you refer to. I took a part from each of the paragraphs. I am not going over it again. Your arguement consists that the definition of UFO used by Good is somehow different to the one Debus used. You brought it up again, thus I asked you in what possible sense other than its traditional meaning did debus remark it as? Good made clear in his book what his definition was, but it's you making the claims about ''different interpretations'' between debus and Good. So I am asking one more time: what other possible definition would debus have meant it and why is it relevent any way?

[Goldstone]

You sure seem to be stating these "sensationalistic claims" as if they were factual.



So you have zero intention of "backing up" your claims?

I was asked what I believed in. How should I have said it?

[R.A.F.]

When these objects are chased by more than one fighter pilot, under the control of the base who had tracked the objects down on radar systems, there is really not much room to believe they had seen and chased a star.

So to answer my question...no??

[JayUtah]

I believe the mind can play tricks yes... but surely this is not always the case...

It doesn't have to always be the case. You don't have to fail 100% of the time in order to be considered unreliable. The important principle to understand is that an ordinary object isn't always going to appear ordinary to a pilot bent on pursuit. Therefore what he considers extraordinary is not guaranteed to be extraordinary.

Certain cases refuse to be washed away with your usual conventional explanations.

You largely don't do anything to show why the conventional explanations are wrong; you simply decline to believe in them.

When these objects are chased by more than one fighter pilot, under the control of the base who had tracked the objects down on radar systems, there is really not much room to believe they had seen and chased a star.

Actually that's the classic case because the alleged radar contact creates the expectation in the intercepting pilots that something will be there when they arrive. If they fail immediately to spot it, the ongoing assurance that its existence has been confirmed by another source expands their willingness to interpret more and more as the object they seek. They "know" it's out out there, and they attribute their failure to see it as evidence they aren't looking hard enough. So they relax their perceptual filters.

As I said, what books have you read on the general sciences that apply to UFO sightings?

[R.A.F.]

Certain cases refuse to be washed away with your usual conventional explanations.

On this board, if you contend that there are non-mundane explanations for these "certain cases", you will be compelled to back up that claim with evidence.

[R.A.F.]

I was asked what I believed in. How should I have said it?

Sorry if there was confusion as to what was expected of you.

[NEOWatcher]

I discussed parts of your post you refer to. I took a part from each of the paragraphs. I am not going over it again.

You discussed what you wanted to discuss without answering the question.

Your arguement consists that the definition of UFO used by Good is somehow different to the one Debus used.

No. I asked how YOU arrived at the conclusion of this paradigm shift based on non-alien technology.
You made no references on any precedences that makes you arrive at this conclusion. You keep steering it to your own interpretation of what you think this current situation is.

So I am asking one more time: what other possible definition would debus have meant it and why is it relevent any way?

I don't care what debus means. I'm not asking him. You are making statements and I am asking you and what you base your opinion on other than just believing the words of another.

[Goldstone]

Actually that's the classic case because the alleged radar contact creates the expectation in the intercepting pilots that something will be there when they arrive. If they fail immediately to spot it, the ongoing assurance that its existence has been confirmed by another source expands their willingness to interpret more and more as the object they seek. They "know" it's out out there, and they attribute their failure to see it as evidence they aren't looking hard enough. So they relax their perceptual filters.

As I said, what books have you read on the general sciences that apply to UFO sightings?

Actually, it's a brilliant case used by UFO-proponents that radar confirmation is the scientific tool which can be used to state these things are solid objects pervading the air space. The fact also that we have Military records delassified suggesting more than one fighter pilot had been involved in the chase would then mean according to your logic they where hallucinating.

As for physics, what physics has to say about such systems, are the likes of Alcubierre Drives and wormholes for faster means of travel (though the latter his is more speculative). Of course, these kind of physics related to UFO's really are in favor of some kind of advanced civilization which has been visiting us. We simply don't have the technology yet for the likes of Alcubierre Drives or manipulating topological openings in the metric of spacetime. And since information which might have been extracted from crash recovery sites are in the hands of the Military, we would expect that this would be kept secret, so we don't really have that many books on the science behind UFO's. It's generally a psuedoscience in most cases.

[JayUtah]

Well what else could have debus meant then????

You're the one insisting on equivalence, so it's your burden to prove that Kurt Debus meant what Timothy Good would say many years hence. My contention is simply that they didn't necessarily intend the same thing. And it's fairly certain that Debus and HQ did not intend the same thing. The strength of Good's reasoning depends on his or your ability to prove (not just suggest) that they were talking about the same thing. Invoking Good's preface doesn't do that.

[Goldstone]

You discussed what you wanted to discuss without answering the question.


No. I asked how YOU arrived at the conclusion of this paradigm shift based on non-alien technology.
You made no references on any precedences that makes you arrive at this conclusion. You keep steering it to your own interpretation of what you think this current situation is.


I don't care what debus means. I'm not asking him. You are making statements and I am asking you and what you base your opinion on other than just believing the words of another.

Well, I never said anything about debus ''having different interpretations for UFO's,'' I wouldn't have been naive enough to think that this was even a valid arguement to begin with. At what means where you hoping to get out of it? I have nothing to answer for. It was you who brought it up, stop passing the buck.

[JayUtah]

Actually, it's a brilliant case used by UFO-proponents that radar confirmation is the scientific tool which can be used to state these things are solid objects pervading the air space.

No, it's sheer ignorance by UFO researchers who don't know how radar works and what errors it's susceptible to. That's what I meant. What UFO researcher has really researched radar at an expert level?

As for physics...

No, I don't mean speculative pseudoscience. I said what books relating to UFO sightings. That would include books such as sociology, and the sciences of perception and recall. These apply to the sightings.

Hilarious, though, that you will immediately jump to books that would seem to support the extraterrestrial hypothesis, which you say you don't advocate. Don't go in circles. If you're going to argue the ETH, be honest about it. Slips like this give away your real intent.

[Strange]

Of course, these kind of physics related to UFO's really are in favor of some kind of advanced civilization which has been visiting us.

There you go again, misusing "UFO". If it is unidentified how can you say what kinds of physics (real or fantasy) are associated with it?

[Goldstone]

You're the one insisting on equivalence, so it's your burden to prove that Kurt Debus meant what Timothy Good would say many years hence. My contention is simply that they didn't necessarily intend the same thing. And it's fairly certain that Debus and HQ did not intend the same thing. The strength of Good's reasoning depends on his or your ability to prove (not just suggest) that they were talking about the same thing. Invoking Good's preface doesn't do that.

Again, what does it matter?

Take this seriously for a moment. Give me all possible definitions of UFO's.... I know them, there ain't many!

This does not counter the fact he said NASA was not engaged in any UFO investigation. But the instruction kit did allow the possibility.


So what is being suggested? What if kurt mean't it in the literal sense, it's ok. That's not what was meant by the instruction kit? And what if Good had a different def of ''UFO?'' Still don't change the fact that the NASA director contradicted himself.

[Goldstone]

There you go again, misusing "UFO". If it is unidentified how can you say what kinds of physics (real or fantasy) are associated with it?

I said ''are in favor'' suggesting to the reader this UFO will be the kind you find in pop culture. Are you going to participate in the discussion properly.... or just waver around the back and try and correct definitions like a grammer nazi?

[Strange]

I said ''are in favor'' suggesting to the reader this UFO will be the kind you find in pop culture. Are you going to participate in the discussion properly.... or just waver around the back and try and correct definitions like a grammer nazi?

I may just carry on pointing out every time you contradict your "I know it means unidentified" claim by referring to UFOs as "aircraft", "intelligently piloted", using unknown physics, etc. Just to see what new excuses you come up with. With this one you seem to be back to, "it's not me that thinks they are aliens (or whatever) it is just popular culture".

If you don't want to be caught out, don't refer to unidentified objects as if you know what they are. On the other hand, if you have some evidence to identify these objects then present it. You can't just pretend no one will notice when you try and conflate "unidentified" with "Goldstone's pet theory".

p.s. any evidence for this "shadow government" nonsense yet?

[R.A.F.]

...that radar confirmation is the scientific tool which can be used to state these things are solid objects pervading the air space.

That is an unproven claim...

The fact also that we have Military records delassified suggesting more than one fighter pilot had been involved in the chase would then mean according to your logic they where hallucinating.

There are numerous mundane explanations that have nothing to do with "hallucinations". Why not list those?

...what physics has to say about such systems, are the likes of Alcubierre Drives and wormholes for faster means of travel (though the latter his is more speculative).

So is the former...again, unproven speculation...

...these kind of physics related to UFO's really are in favor of some kind of advanced civilization which has been visiting us. We simply don't have the technology yet for the likes of Alcubierre Drives or manipulating topological openings in the metric of spacetime.

Unproven speculations regarding how technology "might" advance in no way validate the idea of visiting aliens. I believe that is called circular reasoning.

...since information which might have been extracted from crash recovery sites are in the hands of the Military...

Unproven speculation...

...we would expect that this would be kept secret, so we don't really have that many books on the science behind UFO's. It's generally a psuedoscience in most cases.

There are "no science books related to UFO's, because the military has kept it a secret" is another unproven speculation.

[astrophotographer]

Some people have stumbled across an FBI memo dated March 22, 1950 that describes three UFOs being recovered in New Mexico. Somebody found the document on the FBI’s web site and thought it was something new. Several blogs (like the one linked here) then began to repeat the “news”. However, this memo is not news and has been available for everyone to read for several decades.

I discovered this independantly. There was a copy of it in Goods book, and I compared it to the photocopied version in two british news papers.

It does not matter (this was from an article I wrote months ago). The point of the matter is it is a false trail and is reporting a story that turned out to be a hoax.

[R.A.F.]

Take this seriously for a moment.

Why the assumption that we are not?

Give me all possible definitions of UFO's.... I know them, there ain't many!

I am aware of only one...Unidentified Flying Objects.

So what is being suggested?

Why should we "take seriously" what you "think" is being suggested?

[Goldstone]

It does not matter (this was from an article I wrote months ago). The point of the matter is it is a false trail and is reporting a story that turned out to be a hoax.

I asked you ages ago why the Military would hoax an FBI agent. You never actually answered it.

I hope the integrity of the Memo isn't being questioned. It's the real mcCoy.

[Goldstone]

I may just carry on pointing out every time you contradict your "I know it means unidentified" claim by referring to UFOs as "aircraft", "intelligently piloted", using unknown physics, etc. Just to see what new excuses you come up with. With this one you seem to be back to, "it's not me that thinks they are aliens (or whatever) it is just popular culture".

If you don't want to be caught out, don't refer to unidentified objects as if you know what they are. On the other hand, if you have some evidence to identify these objects then present it. You can't just pretend no one will notice when you try and conflate "unidentified" with "Goldstone's pet theory".

p.s. any evidence for this "shadow government" nonsense yet?

Well I am in a psuedoscience subforum, under conspiracies, so atleast I am expressing this ''nonesense'' in the right catagory

[Goldstone]

Why the assumption that we are not?



I am aware of only one...Unidentified Flying Objects.



Why should we "take seriously" what you "think" is being suggested?

How about stop acting like the riddler and just tell me what you meant to say then. Because what you say and what you think I am getting the impression are two different things.

[R.A.F.]

I asked you ages ago why the Military would hoax an FBI agent. You never actually answered it.

Why would you think that he is in any way compelled to answer your questions??

I hope the integrity of the Memo isn't being questioned. It's the real mcCoy.

Can you Prove that? Please consider that a direct question...

[R.A.F.]

How about stop acting like the riddler and just tell me what you meant to say then.

OK....If you intend to promote non-mundane explanations, then you will be compelled to provide evidence for those explanations.

I don't think I can make myself ANY clearer.

Because what you say and what you think I am getting the impression are two different things.

Sorry, but I see no reason to be held responsible for any "impressions" you are getting...