Project Camelot views and opinions

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:59 pm

alantree wrote:Said Ryguy:
There comes a point when a person's beliefs begin to hamper their ability to discern the truth

Says the Gospels:
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.


Said Ryan: Even those skeptics who believe they are immune to this problem are not - it's an inherent part of human nature to want to believe a hypothesis so badly that they begin to ignore the available evidence that runs contrary to their beliefs.


I agree. We, as a conscious species,
want to believe


But what of the skeptics (such as Chorlton) who say; "Consider everything but believe nothing?" Should he, perhaps, be banned and sentenced to the Hemlock cure?


I smell a Toon in the room! :shock: :x
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA


Postby lost_shaman » Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:33 pm

dazdude wrote:Its like the god debate - it cant YET be proved - but some people get comfort from believing in god - why not let the same happen for ufos and aliens.


It's really not like the God debate. We know UFO's exist, it's just a matter of determining what UFO's are or what causes them.


dazdude wrote:Until we have the definitive scientific proof for each then each side of the existence non-existence argument should get a forum and the consumer should be allowed to choose their proffered path.


Why should we prefere that appraoch when we know UFO's/UAP exist?
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Postby Access Denied » Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:53 am

dazdude wrote:
Take away Roswell/MJ-12 and what are you left with? A poorly understood phenomena that has yet to be fully explained to everybody’s satisfaction

True but there are some very interesting cases out there.

My personal fav and one I have allot of first hand evidence on is the 1980 Rendlesham forest case. yes I know the Larry warren statements and some others are a little dubious, but the core evidence is interesting,

the halt audio tape & report
the depressions
tree damage
radiation readings
witness statements

A little dubious? It needs to be not dubious at all. This is precisely why UFOlogy will never be taken seriously… the will to believe trumps common sense in every “major” case I’ve ever looked at “under the microscope”. For example Ian Ridpath makes a fairly compelling argument in my opinion that all of the “core evidence” you cited above falls apart under closer scrutiny and appears to have been blown way out of proportion…

The Rendlesham Forest UFO case - Ian Ridpath
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham.htm

It never ceases to amaze me how desperately some folks will hang on to a case they personally find “interesting” despite the numerous “problems” with it and this case is no exception. What’s the point? Why is it so hard to believe the witnesses most likely misinterpreted what they were seeing… or worse elaborated on it further?

ryguy wrote:Adding to the "Signal to Noise" Problem

Great post Ryan, I’ve always thought this sums up the problem (pun intended) quite nicely and explains why Science isn’t interested…

NASA - Warp Drive, When? FAQ
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/resea ... rpfaq.html

What about UFOs?

There is an expression that engineers use: "signal to noise ratio." It refers to the difficulty of getting the real signal, say a voice over the telephone, to stand out and be heard above all the noise and clutter that is also on the line. On the subject of UFOs the signal to noise ratio is so abysmal, that it does no good to listen.

That whole subject is really irrelevant to our own human quest to travel to space. If we humans are going to figure out how to build space vehicles, then WE have to build our own space vehicles. It doesn't matter if it has or has not been done by someone else.

Its been suggested that we might have something to learn by studying UFO stories. I disagree. First there is this signal to noise ratio problem. Even if the stories are correct, they are only as useful as science fiction. Science fiction can be useful to give you some mental picture to get you started thinking about the real issues, but it is no more useful than that. Even if UFOs were completely real, which is doubtful, and even if I had a film of one in front of me, it wouldn't be of much help.

For example, if someone in the previous century saw a film of a 747 flying past, it would not tell them how to build a jet engine, what fuel to use, or what materials to make it out of. Yes, the wings are a clue, but just that, a clue. To do real work, to really determine how to build the next generations of vehicles, we need our own information. There are plenty of possibilities for credible approaches emerging from our own scientific literature. It would be a waste of our limited time to go chasing down mere hearsay.

Of course we already know the other reason why the military is no longer interested…
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby lost_shaman » Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:38 am

Access Denied wrote:A little dubious? It needs to be not dubious at all.


That's interesting because I didn't know "not dubious at all" was a requirement that we had to meet.

Let me ask, is it you and you alone who gets to judge what is "not dubious at all" based solely on your 'infailable' common sense?



Access Denied wrote: This is precisely why UFOlogy will never be taken seriously… the will to believe trumps common sense in every “major” case I’ve ever looked at “under the microscope”.


People only look at "major" cases because they have an agenda to show Aliens are 'visiting Earth'!

If you want to understand the UFO Phenomena then you have to look at 'average' cases, where people make observations that shouldn't be ignored. The 'goal' is NOT to show "E.T. is Visiting Earth", the goal is to understand the UFO's/UAP that people actually see and earnestly report in good faith! Also by looking at average cases throughout history and simply profiling behavior the signal to noise ratio is dramatically improved to the point of usefulness!!! :wink:
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Postby Access Denied » Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:46 am

lost_shaman wrote:That's interesting because I didn't know "not dubious at all" was a requirement that we had to meet.

You might feel differently about onus probandi should you ever find yourself facing the death penalty for a crime you didn’t commit. ;)

Perhaps (yet another) primer on the scientific method is in order?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

More specifically…

Truth and belief

Belief can alter observations; those with a particular belief will often see things as reinforcing their belief, even if they do not. Needham's Science and Civilization in China uses the 'flying horse' image as an example of observation: in it, a horse's legs are depicted as splayed, when the stop-action picture by Eadweard Muybridge shows otherwise. Note that at the moment that no hoof is touching the ground, the horse's legs are gathered together and are not splayed.

Image
Flying horse depiction: disproven; see below.

Image
Eadweard Muybridge's studies of a horse galloping

Earlier paintings depict the incorrect flying horse observation. This demonstrates Ludwik Fleck's caution that people observe what they expect to observe, until shown otherwise; our beliefs will affect our observations (and therefore our subsequent actions). The purpose of the scientific method is to test a hypothesis, a belief about how things are, via repeatable experimental observations which can contradict the hypothesis so as to fight this observer bias.

Do you not agree the scientific method requires observations to be “not dubious at all” and that human observation alone is not enough to establish the true nature of what is being observed?

lost_shaman wrote:Let me ask, is it you and you alone who gets to judge what is "not dubious at all" based solely on your 'infailable' common sense?

Yes!

[just kidding… actually common sense, not to be confused with the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum, by definition is not attributable to any single person’s judgment]

lost_shaman wrote:People only look at "major" cases because they have an agenda to show Aliens are 'visiting Earth'!

Agreed, even though they don’t "show" that. :)

lost_shaman wrote:Also by looking at average cases throughout history and simply profiling behavior the signal to noise ratio is dramatically improved to the point of usefulness!!! :wink:

In regards to proving or disproving what hypothesis?

[for the benefit of others it would be helpful for us to know exactly what you’re proposing in lieu of the ETH]
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby lost_shaman » Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:56 am

Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:That's interesting because I didn't know "not dubious at all" was a requirement that we had to meet.

You might feel differently about onus probandi should you ever find yourself facing the death penalty for a crime you didn’t commit. ;)


It's interesting that you mention the 'burden of proof', because we are talking about the UFO Phenomena and we are currently in the hypothesis and testing stage. The 'burden of proof' at this point is going to lay on the shoulders of anyone 'claiming' to have successfully tested a legitimate hypothesis. In Science 'we' don't lay the 'burden of proof' on the involuntary witness! Yet when discussing the UFO Phenomena that is exactly what some people wish to do!


Access Denied wrote:Perhaps (yet another) primer on the scientific method is in order?


Thanks AD, but I do understand the Scientific Method.


Access Denied wrote:Do you not agree the scientific method requires observations to be “not dubious at all”


The Scientific Method, in and of itself, tackles the problem you are alluding to here. You should know that.


Access Denied wrote: and that human observation alone is not enough to establish the true nature of what is being observed?


Were that to be true 'we' wouldn't need a Scientific Method would 'we'?


Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:Let me ask, is it you and you alone who gets to judge what is "not dubious at all" based solely on your 'infailable' common sense?

Yes!

[just kidding… actually common sense, not to be confused with the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum, by definition is not attributable to any single person’s judgment]


Are you really kidding? Common Sense only plays a role in the hypothesis phase! Even so, 'we' are not only encouraged but obligated to argue against 'our' Common Sense.
Last edited by lost_shaman on Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Postby lost_shaman » Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:52 pm

Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:Also by looking at average cases throughout history and simply profiling behavior the signal to noise ratio is dramatically improved to the point of usefulness!!! :wink:

In regards to proving or disproving what hypothesis?


Profiling gives us a decent signal and eliminates the noise. The objection in this thread was that the signal to noise ratio was so high that the data was basically useless, but that isn't true. By profiling characteristics and behavior from reports throughout history we end up with the signal of a recurring phenomena that shares the same basic characteristics and behavior over time.

It is that type of profiling that allows the MoD in it's Condign report to make statements like these.

"It was important to be aware of non-UK reports, if only to recognise shape and colour similarities and keywords to be used in the database. For example, the selected Czech Republic list at Annex C goes back to the year 1607. It is noted that in these Czech examples:

- Descriptions are much the same and often identical to those reported today.

- Listing go back far beyond the days of all manned flight, lasers or satellites. Hence, none of these familiar objects of the 20th century could have caused the earlier reports shown." (Vol. 1, para 17)



Access Denied wrote:[for the benefit of others it would be helpful for us to know exactly what you’re proposing in lieu of the ETH]


I'm not proposing anything in lieu of the ETH. You know I've witnessed a UAP, and my personal opinion is that this phenomena is likely one of the most interesting phenomena in the Solar system regardless of what hypothesis explains them.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Project Camelot views and opinions

Postby Access Denied » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:56 am

lost_shaman wrote:In Science 'we' don't lay the 'burden of proof' on the involuntary witness!

"We" do if they claim to have seen a “flying saucer” from outer space!

lost_shaman wrote:Yet when discussing the UFO Phenomena that is exactly what some people wish to do!

And the people most likely to do that are UFOlogists.

lost_shaman wrote:Thanks AD, but I do understand the Scientific Method.

Although it may not seem like it, my posts aren’t always directed at the person I’m responding to.

lost_shaman wrote:Common Sense only plays a role in the hypothesis phase! Even so, 'we' are not only encouraged but obligated to argue against 'our' Common Sense.

True but one most recognize that in going against the mainstream by proposing an unconventional hypothesis one opens themselves up to harsh criticism… and rightly so. It sounds cliché but it’s true… extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

lost_shaman wrote:Profiling gives us a decent signal and eliminates the noise. The objection in this thread was that the signal to noise ratio was so high that the data was basically useless, but that isn't true. By profiling characteristics and behavior from reports throughout history we end up with the signal of a recurring phenomena that shares the same basic characteristics and behavior over time.

It is that type of profiling that allows the MoD in it's Condign report to make statements like these.

"It was important to be aware of non-UK reports, if only to recognise shape and colour similarities and keywords to be used in the database. For example, the selected Czech Republic list at Annex C goes back to the year 1607. It is noted that in these Czech examples:

- Descriptions are much the same and often identical to those reported today.

- Listing go back far beyond the days of all manned flight, lasers or satellites. Hence, none of these familiar objects of the 20th century could have caused the earlier reports shown." (Vol. 1, para 17)

Right, which then led to these important conclusions…

“No artefacts of unknown or unexplained origin have been reported or handed to the UK authorities, despite thousands of UAP reports. There are no SIGINT, ELINT or radiation measurements and little useful video or still IMINT.”

And…

“There is no evidence that any UAP, seen in the UKADR [UK Air Defence Region], are incursions by air-objects of any intelligent (extra-terrestrial or foreign) origin, or that they represent any hostile intent.”

Of course this is the same conclusion reached by the last major scientific study commissioned by the US Air Force some 30 years earlier… and no let’s please not argue about the “objectivity” of that study again for the umpteenth time. The point is two independent studies failed to find anything in the data that warranted significant further study by their respective organizations.

What makes you think yet another scientific study would yield anything different? I don’t see that anything’s changed recently… no matter how far back you go or how you slice it do you?

lost_shaman wrote:I'm not proposing anything in lieu of the ETH.

OK then how do you feel about the atmospheric plasma theory for some residual of unexplained sightings as proposed by the Condign report?

lost_shaman wrote:You know I've witnessed a UAP, and my personal opinion is that this phenomena is likely one of the most interesting phenomena in the Solar system regardless of what hypothesis explains them.

Really, why’s that?

[and no I don't "know" you've witnessed UAP... I wasn't there so all I "know" is you believe you did]
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Project Camelot views and opinions

Postby lost_shaman » Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:16 am

Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:In Science 'we' don't lay the 'burden of proof' on the involuntary witness!

"We" do if they claim to have seen a “flying saucer” from outer space!


Here you're using 'claim' as a reference to an involuntary witness' opinion of an observation made. Most involuntary witnesses are going to have an opinion of their observation, but we still don't lay the Scientific 'burden of proof' on the shoulders of involuntary witnesses just because they have opinions whatever those opinions may be.

If 'we' want to take a scientific approach to understanding the observations of involuntary witnesses then 'we' actually assume the 'burden of proof' by the acts of formulating and testing hypotheses.


Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:Yet when discussing the UFO Phenomena that is exactly what some people wish to do!

And the people most likely to do that are UFOlogists.


I've seen lots of people do it and in my experience most of those people were not 'UFOlogists'.

Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:Thanks AD, but I do understand the Scientific Method.

Although it may not seem like it, my posts aren’t always directed at the person I’m responding to.


Fair enough, I'm guilty of that on occasion.

Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:Common Sense only plays a role in the hypothesis phase! Even so, 'we' are not only encouraged but obligated to argue against 'our' Common Sense.

True but one most recognize that in going against the mainstream by proposing an unconventional hypothesis one opens themselves up to harsh criticism… and rightly so. It sounds cliché but it’s true… extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


Again, we have 'claims'. Science really doesn't deal with 'claims', it deals with observation and hypotheses. In that sense an 'extraordinary' observation is itself 'extraordinary' evidence.

Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:Profiling gives us a decent signal and eliminates the noise. The objection in this thread was that the signal to noise ratio was so high that the data was basically useless, but that isn't true. By profiling characteristics and behavior from reports throughout history we end up with the signal of a recurring phenomena that shares the same basic characteristics and behavior over time.

It is that type of profiling that allows the MoD in it's Condign report to make statements like these.

"It was important to be aware of non-UK reports, if only to recognise shape and colour similarities and keywords to be used in the database. For example, the selected Czech Republic list at Annex C goes back to the year 1607. It is noted that in these Czech examples:

- Descriptions are much the same and often identical to those reported today.

- Listing go back far beyond the days of all manned flight, lasers or satellites. Hence, none of these familiar objects of the 20th century could have caused the earlier reports shown." (Vol. 1, para 17)

Right, which then led to these important conclusions…

“No artefacts of unknown or unexplained origin have been reported or handed to the UK authorities, despite thousands of UAP reports. There are no SIGINT, ELINT or radiation measurements and little useful video or still IMINT.”

And…

“There is no evidence that any UAP, seen in the UKADR [UK Air Defence Region], are incursions by air-objects of any intelligent (extra-terrestrial or foreign) origin, or that they represent any hostile intent.”

Of course this is the same conclusion reached by the last major scientific study commissioned by the US Air Force some 30 years earlier… and no let’s please not argue about the “objectivity” of that study again for the umpteenth time. The point is two independent studies failed to find anything in the data that warranted significant further study by their respective organizations.


That's not true AD, the Condign report only goes so far as to say that further study does not seem to be justified on the basis that the phenomena represents E.T. Visitation. The report doesn't recommend that there should be no further study of the phenomena.

Access Denied wrote:What makes you think yet another scientific study would yield anything different? I don’t see that anything’s changed recently… no matter how far back you go or how you slice it do you?


I think the Condign report did yield something different. It acknowledges the existence of the global phenomena responsible for the vast majority of 'Unknown' UFO observations. It specifically points out the unfortunate lack of Scientific understanding or even knowledge of the phenomena. The report concludes that the phenomena does actually pose a very real, albeit small, risk to both Commercial and Military aviation especially at low altitudes. It also outlines the extraordinary characteristics and behavior of the phenomena, noting that the phenomena is consistent throughout history and into modern times.

I consider the Condign report to be very different in-and-of itself and in it's conclusions than the U. of Colorado's 1968 UFO Study, where about half the Staff resigned in protest to the un-Scientific approach taken.

Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:I'm not proposing anything in lieu of the ETH.

OK then how do you feel about the atmospheric plasma theory for some residual of unexplained sightings as proposed by the Condign report?


I think it's great. I think there's evidence for that hypothesis (BTW, it's not a theory yet because that would require further scientific study of the phenomena.). That seems to be the hypothesis that is validated by the scientific instrumented observations being made in the Hessdalen Valley recently. So, that hypothesis could actually become theory in short order if there are more scientific studies of the phenomena in the near future.



Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:You know I've witnessed a UAP, and my personal opinion is that this phenomena is likely one of the most interesting phenomena in the Solar system regardless of what hypothesis explains them.

Really, why’s that?

[and no I don't "know" you've witnessed UAP... I wasn't there so all I "know" is you believe you did]


You're right. Thank you, AD [-o< for pointing that out to me. Technically you don't 'know' that, just like I don't 'know' if you've ever witnessed Blue Whales, or the Moon and the Stars, or even your own reflection in the Mirror because I wasn't there when you witnessed those things, or not, either. :mrgreen:

My point is that there is no reason to get this philosophically technical in normal human to human conversation or verbal debate! Do I really need to revert to saying things like "You 'are aware that according to my own life experience as described to you personally in confidence by myself that' I've witnessed a UAP..."?

Seriously that's a lot of typing for nothing when I could just casually say you "know" and be done. The beauty of everyday English, inference. =D>


Now back to being serious...

Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:my personal opinion is that this phenomena is likely one of the most interesting phenomena in the Solar system regardless of what hypothesis explains them.

Really, why’s that?


AD, can you honestly tell me you read the Condign report and that you thought the phenomena described (UAP) is NOT interesting?!!!

Please describe to me WHAT is NOT Scientifically INTERESTING about the actual observable phenomena?
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Project Camelot views and opinions

Postby Access Denied » Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:34 pm

lost_shaman wrote:
Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:In Science 'we' don't lay the 'burden of proof' on the involuntary witness!

"We" do if they claim to have seen a “flying saucer” from outer space!

Here you're using 'claim' as a reference to an involuntary witness' opinion of an observation made. Most involuntary witnesses are going to have an opinion of their observation, but we still don't lay the Scientific 'burden of proof' on the shoulders of involuntary witnesses just because they have opinions whatever those opinions may be.

Again, "we" do if they claim to have seen a “flying saucer” from outer space! (i.e. something extraordinary) There is no way for Science to disprove such a claim (or any other hypothesis for that matter) based on anecdotal evidence alone. The best Science can do is determine the most likely source or label it unidentified… i.e. insufficient data.

lost_shaman wrote:If 'we' want to take a scientific approach to understanding the observations of involuntary witnesses then 'we' actually assume the 'burden of proof' by the acts of formulating and testing hypotheses.

Sure, but “we” have been down that road before… it leads nowhere in terms of gaining new knowledge and understanding. We already know somewhere around 95% of sightings (depending on who you ask) have a prosaic explanation…

I find your use of the term “involuntary witness” interesting… as if they are victims. Victims of what? The highly subjective and unreliable nature of human observation and the fact that given incomplete visual cues we tend to “fill in the blanks” using our “imagination” and typically we select things that we “fear” due to our survival instinct?

lost_shaman wrote:I've seen lots of people do it and in my experience most of those people were not 'UFOlogists'.

I think the fact that we have a non-scientific group of people heavily promoting the ETH (aka “UFOlogists”) despite the lack of evidence complicates the issue of responsibility don’t you?

lost_shaman wrote:Again, we have 'claims'. Science really doesn't deal with 'claims', it deals with observation and hypotheses. In that sense an 'extraordinary' observation is itself 'extraordinary' evidence.

How do you figure when 95% of these “extraordinary” observations turn out to have a prosaic explanation and the other 5% contain insufficient evidence to test a hypothesis?

lost_shaman wrote: consider the Condign report to be very different in-and-of itself and in it's conclusions than the U. of Colorado's 1968 UFO Study, where about half the Staff resigned in protest to the un-Scientific approach taken.

You’re right it was different, the Condign report was primarily the work of one person and wasn’t subject to peer review and I think you might need to do some more research to justify your claim that “about half” the Condon Committee resigned in protest…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condon_Committee

Of sixteen original Committee members, two were fired, one resigned in protest, and another stepped down after facing legal troubles unrelated to the Committee.

[note the conflicting quotes after this from questionable pro ETH sources in the wikipedia entry]

lost_shaman wrote:
Access Denied wrote:[and no I don't "know" you've witnessed UAP... I wasn't there so all I "know" is you believe you did]

You're right. Thank you, AD [-o< for pointing that out to me. Technically you don't 'know' that, just like I don't 'know' if you've ever witnessed Blue Whales, or the Moon and the Stars, or even your own reflection in the Mirror because I wasn't there when you witnessed those things, or not, either. :mrgreen:

My point is that there is no reason to get this philosophically technical in normal human to human conversation or verbal debate! Do I really need to revert to saying things like "You 'are aware that according to my own life experience as described to you personally in confidence by myself that' I've witnessed a UAP..."?

Seriously that's a lot of typing for nothing when I could just casually say you "know" and be done. The beauty of everyday English, inference. =D>

LOL you do have a sense of humor after all… well done! This is progress…

Now if only I could get you to stop using circular reasoning we actually might be able to have an enjoyable conversation. :)

Access Denied wrote:AD, can you honestly tell me you read the Condign report and that you thought the phenomena described (UAP) is NOT interesting?!!!

Well, as you know I’ve been involved in plasma research and I’ve even photographed “UFOs” in the laboratory so I guess you could say I find it somewhat interesting… pretty sure the rest of the scientific community doesn’t though. The plasma hypothesis is not new and not without it’s detractors and I tend to favor the psychosocial hypothesis anyway.

Access Denied wrote:Please describe to me WHAT is NOT Scientifically INTERESTING about the actual observable phenomena?

The fact that 95% or so turn out to have a prosaic explanation and there’s no reason to believe that any of the other 5% represent evidence of extraterrestrial visitation or a phenomena beyond the realm of known physics?

As Professor Edward U. Condon put it in his infamous “conclusion” given before the analysis that most critics ignore…

Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.

It has been argued that this lack of contribution to science is due to the fact that very little scientific effort has been put on the subject. We do not agree. We feel that the reason that there has been very little scientific study of the subject is that those scientists who are most directly concerned, astronomers, atmospheric physicists, chemists, and psychologists, having had ample opportunity to look into the matter, have individually decided that UFO phenomena do not offer a fruitful field in which to look for major scientific discoveries.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Project Camelot views and opinions

Postby lost_shaman » Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:49 pm

Access Denied wrote:Again, "we" do if they claim to have seen a “flying saucer” from outer space! (i.e. something extraordinary)



Well, Ad, lots of people report UFO's/UAP that could be referred to as, or considered to be, (in the sense of reporting UFOs/UAP) a classical “flying saucer” (Discodial light or 'Object'). That in itself is not "extraordinary". In fact I'd say it's quite ordinary, as well as the reporting of several other shapes.



Access Denied wrote:There is no way for Science to disprove such a claim (or any other hypothesis for that matter) based on anecdotal evidence alone.


Yes, you're right! Anecdotal evidence alone, after the fact, CAN NOT Scientifically validate, or disprove, a given hypothesis based solely on that that singular observation alone because any valid hypothesis must predict future observations in order to become theory! Without future observation(s) NO hypothesis can become theory!

Access Denied wrote: The best Science can do is determine the most likely source or label it unidentified… i.e. insufficient data.


That's not the 'best' Science can do when dealing with a recurring phenomena.


Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:If 'we' want to take a scientific approach to understanding the observations of involuntary witnesses then 'we' actually assume the 'burden of proof' by the acts of formulating and testing hypotheses.

Sure, but “we” have been down that road before… it leads nowhere in terms of gaining new knowledge and understanding. We already know somewhere around 95% of sightings (depending on who you ask) have a prosaic explanation…

I find your use of the term “involuntary witness” interesting… as if they are victims. Victims of what? The highly subjective and unreliable nature of human observation and the fact that given incomplete visual cues we tend to “fill in the blanks” using our “imagination” and typically we select things that we “fear” due to our survival instinct?


I had no intent to imply some form of 'victimization' here by my use of "involuntary witness". It's simply meant to be used to describe a 'witness' to a chance observation in nature of transient phenomena.




Access Denied wrote:I think the fact that we have a non-scientific group of people heavily promoting the ETH (aka “UFOlogists”) despite the lack of evidence complicates the issue of responsibility don’t you?


So you think Science is impotent to study observable phenomena in the Earth's atmosphere because "UFOlogists" heavily promote the ETH as a hypothesis to explain the observable phenomena in the Earth's atmosphere?

I don't adhere to that logic.


Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:Again, we have 'claims'. Science really doesn't deal with 'claims', it deals with observation and hypotheses. In that sense an 'extraordinary' observation is itself 'extraordinary' evidence.

How do you figure when 95% of these “extraordinary” observations turn out to have a prosaic explanation and the other 5% contain insufficient evidence to test a hypothesis?


You're correct in that only a small percent of "UFO" reports can not be explained by prosaic explanations, but what you apparently fail to recognize is that within that small percent that can not be explained by prosaic explanations we find a consistent recurring observable phenomena being reported. We can test any hypotheses we wish considering the recurring nature of the observable phenomena.




Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote: I consider the Condign report to be very different in-and-of itself and in it's conclusions than the U. of Colorado's 1968 UFO Study, where about half the Staff resigned in protest to the un-Scientific approach taken.

You’re right it was different, the Condign report was primarily the work of one person and wasn’t subject to peer review and I think you might need to do some more research to justify your claim that “about half” the Condon Committee resigned in protest…


You're right, I shouldn't have let myself make that "about half" mistake. Regardless, members of the Study did infact speak out publically that they considered the 'Study' to have been un-Scientific and 'biased'.

As for the Condign report, it was a "classified" Study for the MoD. However, now that it's 'declassified' and openly published there is nothing stopping anyone from 'Peer Reviewing' the Study. Don't forget that the Condign 'study' and it's conclusions were based mainly on open and duely referenced literature.




Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:AD, can you honestly tell me you read the Condign report and that you thought the phenomena described (UAP) is NOT interesting?!!!

Well, as you know I’ve been involved in plasma research and I’ve even photographed “UFOs” in the laboratory so I guess you could say I find it somewhat interesting… pretty sure the rest of the scientific community doesn’t though.


Seems to me there are quite a few Scientists, Astronomers, and Engineers that are apparently interested. For example the French Space Agency, CNES, has been studying the phenomena for over 30 years now, would you not consider the Scientists, Astronomers, and Engineers at CNES to be part of the scientific community?


Access Denied wrote: The plasma hypothesis is not new and not without it’s detractors and I tend to favor the psychosocial hypothesis anyway.


Well maybe those detractors will be forced to re-think their position considering that UAP in Hessdalen, which occur globally, can be shown to be plasmas.



Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:Please describe to me WHAT is NOT Scientifically INTERESTING about the actual observable phenomena?

The fact that 95% or so turn out to have a prosaic explanation and there’s no reason to believe that any of the other 5% represent evidence of extraterrestrial visitation or a phenomena beyond the realm of known physics?


I don't know about that AD. Does current Physics have an explanation for the Atmospheric Plasmas being studied in Hessdalen?


Access Denied wrote:As Professor Edward U. Condon put it in his infamous “conclusion” given before the analysis that most critics ignore…

Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.

It has been argued that this lack of contribution to science is due to the fact that very little scientific effort has been put on the subject. We do not agree. We feel that the reason that there has been very little scientific study of the subject is that those scientists who are most directly concerned, astronomers, atmospheric physicists, chemists, and psychologists, having had ample opportunity to look into the matter, have individually decided that UFO phenomena do not offer a fruitful field in which to look for major scientific discoveries.


So now 40 years later "those scientists" that do decide to look into the UFO Phenomena for major scientific discoveries are ignored or blown off as "quacks"?

BTW, here's another one of Dr. Condon's infamous "conclusions"...
"there's nothing to it (UFO's), but I'm not supposed to come to a conclusion for another year."


And let's not forget that according to a Memo written by Dr. Robert Low that described the "Study" as a "trick" to convince 'scientists' that there was nothing to study other than the psychology of observers!

As for "Peer Review" after the Condon report was released the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) issued their own statement.

"The Committee has made a careful examination of the present state of the UFO issue and has concluded that the controversy cannot be resolved without further study in a quantitative scientific manner and that it deserves the attention of the engineering and scientific community."



Let me end with this quote from Dr. Condon...

"If they agree with our conclusions, they will turn their valuable attention and talents elsewhere. If they disagree, it will be because our report has helped them reach a clear picture of wherein existing studies are faulty or incomplete and thereby will have stimulated ideas for more accurate studies. If they do get such ideas and can formulate them clearly, we have no doubt that support will be forthcoming to carry on with such clearly defined, specific studies. We think that such ideas for work should be supported."
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Previous

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

cron