Author Topic: UFOs now called UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon) Crowd Stories and photos. (Read 83872 times)

Lowls · « **Reply #50 on:** May 22, 2023, 23:39 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on May 22, 2023, 21:27

Quote from: Lowls on May 22, 2023, 03:20

... is a computer programmer who has never served in the military. ...
He isn't medically trained either. He also doesn't have any experience in the mental health world.

Not sure what being in the military, having medical or mental health training has to do with analyzing claims of extraterrestrials. That is all irrelevant.

It doesn't matter how much logic or analysis is presented some people are never going to change their minds so it isn't worth the effort trying. Enjoy your delusions.

You call a plumber to prescribe you medicine?
Take any sick pets to the bakers for treatment?
Send your children to the local Greek Taverna for their education and a healthy lifestyle?

I Know you aren't that stupid and you know Mick West is a quack.

Lowls · « **Reply #51 on:** May 23, 2023, 07:53 »

May 2021 a string if lights appear very similar to the Phoenix lights. And one of the observers captures this photo. No noise completely silent.

https://twitter.com/TaskandPurpose/status/1435030398397030400/photo/1

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/05/22/21/71284561-0-image-a-17_1684785879804.jpg

Annie2022 · « **Reply #52 on:** May 23, 2023, 10:45 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on May 19, 2023, 22:14

Some of the TV shows about these kinds of things are amusing entertainment but that is about it. The Ancient Aliens guys are interesting because they present some evidence that almost sounds reasonable and is highly believed by the respected "Ancient Astronaut Theorists".

Yes.

A theory is only a theory if it is testable. For example, they can say that aliens built the pyramids, or gave the technology to humans to build them, but because that claim cannot be tested, it is not a theory - its just an opinion.

cascoly · « **Reply #53 on:** May 23, 2023, 12:40 »

Quote from: Lowls on May 22, 2023, 23:23

...
An anecdote as you put it is not worthless as evidence. We live by the unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence every day. If you stopped long enough from mashing your keyboard and calmed down you would realise how silly your claim is. Dietary advice, fitness advice, purchases, food critics, holiday reviews, financial advice, main stream media, Google, everything on utube, what glue to use for inner tube repair and climate "CRISIS"!!!!!!!!!! Arghhhhhhhhhhh ... anecdotal evidence is everywhere. And you like everyone yaffles it up.
...

all of which proves my point -- almost all that advice is anecdotal (much of it paid for by those selling a product; most negative results from pharmaceutical companies, eg, is never published, as demonstrated by whistle blowers) -- curious how you also slipped in climate change - the only peer reviewed, scientific consensus in your list! or do you believe wildfires are caused by lizard lasers?

and you just show how harmful it is for so much nonsense lives on the internet (and what effect it has on chatbots trained on garbage (GIGO))

i read but don't trust advice & reviews unless they're from a source that has been proved truthful in the past

corollary to previous adage:
Quantity of unsupported anecdotes is not evidence of truth of those anecdotes

finally, sorry if my pointing out your logical fallacies and misinformation has caused you angst

Lowls · « **Reply #54 on:** May 23, 2023, 12:45 »

Quote from: Annie on May 23, 2023, 10:45

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on May 19, 2023, 22:14

Some of the TV shows about these kinds of things are amusing entertainment but that is about it. The Ancient Aliens guys are interesting because they present some evidence that almost sounds reasonable and is highly believed by the respected "Ancient Astronaut Theorists".

Yes.

A theory is only a theory if it is testable. For example, they can say that aliens built the pyramids, or gave the technology to humans to build them, but because that claim cannot be tested, it is not a theory - its just an opinion.

I don't think theory means what you thinknit does.
String theory.
Darwins theory of evolution.
The theory of everything not My opinion on it.
Her theory was that all children want to learn.
There is no evidence on which to base such a theory.

Lowls · « **Reply #55 on:** May 23, 2023, 12:59 »

Quote from: cascoly on May 23, 2023, 12:40

Quote from: Lowls on May 22, 2023, 23:23
...
An anecdote as you put it is not worthless as evidence. We live by the unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence every day. If you stopped long enough from mashing your keyboard and calmed down you would realise how silly your claim is. Dietary advice, fitness advice, purchases, food critics, holiday reviews, financial advice, main stream media, Google, everything on utube, what glue to use for inner tube repair and climate "CRISIS"!!!!!!!!!! Arghhhhhhhhhhh ... anecdotal evidence is everywhere. And you like everyone yaffles it up.
...

all of which proves my point -- almost all that advice is anecdotal (much of it paid for by those selling a product; most negative results from pharmaceutical companies, eg, is never published, as demonstrated by whistle blowers) -- curious how you also slipped in climate change - the only peer reviewed, scientific consensus in your list! or do you believe wildfires are caused by lizard lasers?

and you just show how harmful it is for so much nonsense lives on the internet (and what effect it has on chatbots trained on garbage (GIGO))

i read but don't trust advice & reviews unless they're from a source that has been proved truthful in the past

corollary to previous adage:
Quantity of unsupported anecdotes is not evidence of truth of those anecdotes

finally, sorry if my pointing out your logical fallacies and misinformation has caused you angst

I'll soldier on. And now to slip the onus onto you ...
Talking of wild claims

"most negative results from pharmaceutical companies, eg, is never published, as demonstrated by whistle blowers"
Citation please 😊

"and you just show how harmful it is for so much nonsense lives on the internet (and what effect it has on chatbots trained on garbage (GIGO))"
Citation please

"i read but don't trust advice & reviews unless they're from a source that has been proved truthful in the past"

Surely that requires trusting unsubstantiated advice and reviews to find that your trust was correct or incorrect. Reviews are just opinions from randoms on the Internet or likley coming back to your first point that they have skin in the game and cannot be trusted.

Lol what are you an off grid happy clapper. Please tell me you believe in God. oh please 🙏, pretty please with a cherry on top lol.

Annie2022 · « **Reply #56 on:** May 23, 2023, 18:20 »

Quote from: Lowls on May 23, 2023, 12:45

Quote from: Annie on May 23, 2023, 10:45
Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on May 19, 2023, 22:14

Some of the TV shows about these kinds of things are amusing entertainment but that is about it. The Ancient Aliens guys are interesting because they present some evidence that almost sounds reasonable and is highly believed by the respected "Ancient Astronaut Theorists".

Yes.

A theory is only a theory if it is testable. For example, they can say that aliens built the pyramids, or gave the technology to humans to build them, but because that claim cannot be tested, it is not a theory - its just an opinion.

I don't think theory means what you thinknit does.
String theory.
Darwins theory of evolution.
The theory of everything not My opinion on it.
Her theory was that all children want to learn.
There is no evidence on which to base such a theory.

"In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with the scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that scientific tests should be able to provide empirical support for it, or empirical contradiction ("falsify") of it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[1] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis).

Theories guide the enterprise of finding facts rather than of reaching goals, and are neutral concerning alternatives among values.[3]: 131 A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge.[4]: 46

The word theory or "in theory" is sometimes used erroneously by people to explain something which they individually did not experience or test before."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Lowls · « **Reply #57 on:** May 23, 2023, 23:58 »

Quote from: Annie on May 23, 2023, 18:20

Quote from: Lowls on May 23, 2023, 12:45
Quote from: Annie on May 23, 2023, 10:45
Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on May 19, 2023, 22:14

Some of the TV shows about these kinds of things are amusing entertainment but that is about it. The Ancient Aliens guys are interesting because they present some evidence that almost sounds reasonable and is highly believed by the respected "Ancient Astronaut Theorists".

Yes.

A theory is only a theory if it is testable. For example, they can say that aliens built the pyramids, or gave the technology to humans to build them, but because that claim cannot be tested, it is not a theory - its just an opinion.

I don't think theory means what you think it does.
String theory.
Darwins theory of evolution.
The theory of everything not My opinion on it.
Her theory was that all children want to learn.
There is no evidence on which to base such a theory.

"In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with the scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that scientific tests should be able to provide empirical support for it, or empirical contradiction ("falsify") of it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[1] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis).

Theories guide the enterprise of finding facts rather than of reaching goals, and are neutral concerning alternatives among values.[3]: 131 A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge.[4]: 46

The word theory or "in theory" is sometimes used erroneously by people to explain something which they individually did not experience or test before."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

I didn't think you did.

You are mistakenly thinking that "theory" means one thing and can only be used regarding scientific theory. The word scientific here merely contextualises the word theory's use. When using the word scientific in front of theory you give it the meaning you suggest.

As you show, another use is to use the word 'in' before theory. Your Wikipedia cut and paste states that in this case the words 'in theory' are used incorrectly and the word that should be used is hypothesis because it isnt tested.

In scientific paper useage this would be true. In terms of common parlance it is not.

Specifically in your initial stab at it you state:
"A theory is only a theory if it is testable. For example, they can say that aliens built the pyramids, or gave the technology to humans to build them, but because that claim cannot be tested, it is not a theory - its just an opinion."

This was not correct. If you want it to mean what you intended you need to write "A scientifc theory is only valid if it is testable. For example, they can say that aliens built the pyramids, or gave the technology to humans to build them, but because that claim cannot be tested, it is not a scientifically proven theory - its just an untested hypothesis."

Then not only is the example you gave written correctly it also conveys the meaning you intended. Using 'opinion' would be snooty and superior. That's not you is it Annie?

If you had read that bit above your cut and paste you would have seen it states "For theories in science, see Scientific theory. For other uses, see Theory (disambiguation)."

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge."

Abductive reasoning = best guess based on the facts at hand, opinion, logical inference ... etc ... blah blah blah

I don't subscribe to aliens having built the pyramids though there is no evidence ro suggest they didn't. But there is a rather cool study of the pyramids which people should watch. It's on utube. And one of the archaeologist who has studied all the tools available (all the excavated tools), and did a series of experiments over a period of time. Specifically in cutting the stones required to build the pyramids. And using just the tools they have found across all sites and techniques that the tools imply .... they would still be building them today. Not enough time has passed to finish them. The conclusion is that they are far older than believed.

Much of the stone cut is so tightly fitting you cannot even get a human hair between them. The joins are so accurate. And modern studies of the cut surfaces show the use of modern tools. As in modern disk saw technology leaves tool marks on stone surfaces and they have found the same markings on the stones. I think I also read somewhere that the hieroglyphic paintings across all the sites show some amazing things. Allegedly none show the Egyptians using any of the tools found. Although you will find images in text books showing them using the tools, none of them are based in fact. If thats true it can mean only one thing clearly .... alemims Annie ... 👽.. alemims 😲

Annie2022 · « **Reply #58 on:** May 24, 2023, 00:16 »

Quote from: Lowls on May 23, 2023, 23:58

Quote from: Annie on May 23, 2023, 18:20
Quote from: Lowls on May 23, 2023, 12:45
Quote from: Annie on May 23, 2023, 10:45
Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on May 19, 2023, 22:14

Some of the TV shows about these kinds of things are amusing entertainment but that is about it. The Ancient Aliens guys are interesting because they present some evidence that almost sounds reasonable and is highly believed by the respected "Ancient Astronaut Theorists".

Yes.

A theory is only a theory if it is testable. For example, they can say that aliens built the pyramids, or gave the technology to humans to build them, but because that claim cannot be tested, it is not a theory - its just an opinion.

I don't think theory means what you think it does.
String theory.
Darwins theory of evolution.
The theory of everything not My opinion on it.
Her theory was that all children want to learn.
There is no evidence on which to base such a theory.

"In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with the scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that scientific tests should be able to provide empirical support for it, or empirical contradiction ("falsify") of it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[1] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis).

Theories guide the enterprise of finding facts rather than of reaching goals, and are neutral concerning alternatives among values.[3]: 131 A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge.[4]: 46

The word theory or "in theory" is sometimes used erroneously by people to explain something which they individually did not experience or test before."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

I didn't think you did.

haha That was exactly what I was going to say to you above - that you haven't studied much science, have you? But I didn't want to get into any personal attacks.

But If that's what makes you feel better, go ahead, have fun with it.

Have a nice day, Lowls

Lowls · « **Reply #59 on:** May 24, 2023, 00:42 »

Quote from: Annie on May 24, 2023, 00:16

Quote from: Lowls on May 23, 2023, 23:58
Quote from: Annie on May 23, 2023, 18:20
Quote from: Lowls on May 23, 2023, 12:45
Quote from: Annie on May 23, 2023, 10:45
Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on May 19, 2023, 22:14

Some of the TV shows about these kinds of things are amusing entertainment but that is about it. The Ancient Aliens guys are interesting because they present some evidence that almost sounds reasonable and is highly believed by the respected "Ancient Astronaut Theorists".

Yes.

A theory is only a theory if it is testable. For example, they can say that aliens built the pyramids, or gave the technology to humans to build them, but because that claim cannot be tested, it is not a theory - its just an opinion.

I don't think theory means what you think it does.
String theory.
Darwins theory of evolution.
The theory of everything not My opinion on it.
Her theory was that all children want to learn.
There is no evidence on which to base such a theory.

"In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with the scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that scientific tests should be able to provide empirical support for it, or empirical contradiction ("falsify") of it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[1] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis).

Theories guide the enterprise of finding facts rather than of reaching goals, and are neutral concerning alternatives among values.[3]: 131 A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge.[4]: 46

The word theory or "in theory" is sometimes used erroneously by people to explain something which they individually did not experience or test before."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

I didn't think you did.

haha That was exactly what I was going to say to you above - that you haven't studied much science, have you? But I didn't want to get into any personal attacks.

But If that's what makes you feel better, go ahead, have fun with it.

Have a nice day, Lowls

I have several qualifications in all the sciences apart from one Annie and quite a few in English 😉
However chemistry was and for ever shall be the most boring hideous waste of my time. I had two chemistry teachers. My first was an amazing man who delved and created and spun magical lessons where every minute was exciting. And because I did well they handed me up to a "better" teacher. And he was a tit who would regularly have a nervous breakdown. We may have lit the bunsen burner tap whilst it was on full sending an arc of fire across the classroom engulfing two other students briefly. I may have smothered the door handle in vaseline on more than one ocassion. But it was urghh ... powders and ... chemical bonds ... jesus ..

Stock4Me · « **Reply #60 on:** May 24, 2023, 10:19 »

Quote from: Lowls on May 23, 2023, 12:45

Quote from: Annie on May 23, 2023, 10:45
Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on May 19, 2023, 22:14

Some of the TV shows about these kinds of things are amusing entertainment but that is about it. The Ancient Aliens guys are interesting because they present some evidence that almost sounds reasonable and is highly believed by the respected "Ancient Astronaut Theorists".

Yes.

A theory is only a theory if it is testable. For example, they can say that aliens built the pyramids, or gave the technology to humans to build them, but because that claim cannot be tested, it is not a theory - its just an opinion.

I don't think theory means what you thinknit does.
String theory.
Darwins theory of evolution.
The theory of everything not My opinion on it.
Her theory was that all children want to learn.
There is no evidence on which to base such a theory.

You have no understand of how science works, especially for someone who claims to have studied. Making claims that something is a UFO, is not a theory, but a statement of fact. Pure conjecture, peer review, there's none. Anyone anywhere can write some claims and fabricate a story and publish that, when it's pseudoscience and UFOs. This is backwards and you don't understand. The system isn't write about some UAP and then demand that someone else prove it's not.

Real science has review of theories and articles and studies, before they can be published, in a journal. Proof is evidence that's collected and repeatable that others can study. The questions are about proving something is true first, before making a claim. All you have is your close minded belief and you block out and deny everything that doesn't fit your personal theory. Real study includes everything in order to balance what is claimed. You only include what fits your theory. That is close minded thinking not what you think is open minded.

LDV81 · « **Reply #61 on:** May 24, 2023, 12:02 »

Slightly off on a tangent, but LOL, people who think that what they can see with their own eyes and photograph is the whole of reality are like the ones in Plato's cave. If you think the phenomenon is only about some alleged extraterrestrials coming in spaceships, you don't even realize how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Guys, everything you know is wrong.

Although, sometimes being wrong can be great and can be progress - it means we understand the question. But often, we are not even wrong - we don't even understand the question, like a dog asked if Australia is larger or smaller than Cuba.

Watch this, as an introduction, especially if science is important to you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY

Then check this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAB21FAXCDE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYdQYZ9Rj4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m7BxlWlvzc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhGYsUitgNk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1BULYFf8qo

Most of you/us have been living in Plato's cave, all our lives. Debunking UFOs is so 1985, it is like arguing about shadows on the walls of Plato's cave...

Lowls · « **Reply #62 on:** May 24, 2023, 13:58 »

Quote from: Stock4Me on May 24, 2023, 10:19

Quote from: Lowls on May 23, 2023, 12:45
Quote from: Annie on May 23, 2023, 10:45
Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on May 19, 2023, 22:14

Some of the TV shows about these kinds of things are amusing entertainment but that is about it. The Ancient Aliens guys are interesting because they present some evidence that almost sounds reasonable and is highly believed by the respected "Ancient Astronaut Theorists".

Yes.

A theory is only a theory if it is testable. For example, they can say that aliens built the pyramids, or gave the technology to humans to build them, but because that claim cannot be tested, it is not a theory - its just an opinion.

I don't think theory means what you thinknit does.
String theory.
Darwins theory of evolution.
The theory of everything not My opinion on it.
Her theory was that all children want to learn.
There is no evidence on which to base such a theory.

You have no understand of how science works, especially for someone who claims to have studied. Making claims that something is a UFO, is not a theory, but a statement of fact. Pure conjecture, peer review, there's none. Anyone anywhere can write some claims and fabricate a story and publish that, when it's pseudoscience and UFOs. This is backwards and you don't understand. The system isn't write about some UAP and then demand that someone else prove it's not.

Real science has review of theories and articles and studies, before they can be published, in a journal. Proof is evidence that's collected and repeatable that others can study. The questions are about proving something is true first, before making a claim. All you have is your close minded belief and you block out and deny everything that doesn't fit your personal theory. Real study includes everything in order to balance what is claimed. You only include what fits your theory. That is close minded thinking not what you think is open minded.

I'm going to print and frame that like a comic. No conjecture at all there.
It's funny when I've lived the life I have and done the things I have done and I look back on all that. All those years. And in all those years, when I look back the one thing that comes to mind is this ... who the f are you lol. I don't remember you being in my life at all. Is that you mum?

I don't remember labelling anything as a UFO other than the video links I've supplied which whilst new ish on the world stage aren't new to anyone interested in that area. And those cases have already been examined by the US government under a at the time secret governmnent task team and categorised as UFOs. The Bristol UFO was what it was. Take it as you find it. I rather like the Chinese lantern theory offered by someone on twitter because they look identical but then the actual trained observers (that's the official term for people of integrity who are trained) explained that their helicopter couldn't catch it and it was flying into then wind. Which rather rules the lantern out. Now if you call that closed minded then I cant stop you but you're delusional.

But I'll take the cristicism and ask you a fair question because you imply that I don't know what a UFO is. Please define a UFO UAP take your pick. And I'll happily listen.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #63 on:** May 25, 2023, 06:50 »

Speaking of aliens.
NYC Spends $8 Million a Day to House Migrants as Influx Swells
The costs associated with the migrant crisis are ballooning beyond the city’s ability to afford them, city officials have repeatedly warned. The cost of sheltering and caring for the migrant population will reach $4.3 billion by July 1 of next year, according to city estimates — but the total cost could be much larger if recent immigration trends continue
Seems they found it's easy to be a sanctuary city in theory, but much different when it becomes the reality.

Lowls · « **Reply #64 on:** May 25, 2023, 07:36 »

Quote from: LDV81 on May 24, 2023, 12:02

Slightly off on a tangent, but LOL, people who think that what they can see with their own eyes and photograph is the whole of reality are like the ones in Plato's cave. If you think the phenomenon is only about some alleged extraterrestrials coming in spaceships, you don't even realize how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Guys, everything you know is wrong.

Although, sometimes being wrong can be great and can be progress - it means we understand the question. But often, we are not even wrong - we don't even understand the question, like a dog asked if Australia is larger or smaller than Cuba.

Watch this, as an introduction, especially if science is important to you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY

Then check this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAB21FAXCDE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYdQYZ9Rj4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m7BxlWlvzc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhGYsUitgNk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1BULYFf8qo

Most of you/us have been living in Plato's cave, all our lives. Debunking UFOs is so 1985, it is like arguing about shadows on the walls of Plato's cave...

Do we see reality as it is hahahahahaha jesus. I watched that one and brilliant. He's missing that linking part isn't he between theory and I guess proof. Although there are indications that he is totally right, he can't get to ... andnthat proof or example is true for all experiences. There are a couple of experiences which don't fit with that and one is the experience of gravity because that isn't like most things a perception or experience viewed through the interface. Gravity happens and happens regardless of being witnessed by us through our as he explains it interface. And you can prove that because of planets with no known life or witness with an interface with which to view it. They still have mass which forms the planet. I guess he would argue that ... there is no planet potentially just a set of experiences that cause us to construct the planet using our interface (I'm just using his terminology). It's a very expanded version of if a tree falls in the woods and no one sees it, does it still fall. I've always said yes because something will witness it. A bug or a microbe anything. What he susggests is that if there were no things that possessed a consciousness there, then not only does the tree not fall, but there isn't even a wood. It needs consciousness to construct it in order to exist. But this brings us to his other problem ... if he is right then consciousness requires a witness to exist ... and that's what's missing from his theory. The identity of that witness.

Yeah lol for ever we were the goldilocks planet ... rare as hens teeth. An argument used by skeptics to debunk other life inbthe universe. Which is funny because SETI gets millions trying to prove the opposite. Headed up by Shostak who believes the opposite of that lol. And yet we had the drake equation which in theory (☺️ Annie), mathematically proved we were not that rare. I'm old enough to remember that Skeptics and the science community generally or rather would openly swear on their children's lives that they had kissed a unicorns arse before they would admit they trusted or believed in the Drake equation. Now after James Webb they've proved the drake equation is rubbish. The numbers were wrong. His equation underestimated the number of planets out there.

The hints that this guy is right that I am aware of are the odd optical tricks our brains and eyes play on us.

Many years ago my friends and I visited a place allegedly haunted. We just stayed there we didn't go for some ghost hunting etc. We all congregated in one hotel room after a day out (no drinking it just wasn't that kind of day). Anyway we were laughing and joking. The curtains were drawn. And in the small ours at the window there came a tap tap tap ... we fell silent. Then a thud thud thud. Well gotta say our blood ran cold and we all stood up. The bangs on the window were very loud. Then suddenly without any warning a hand burst through the curtains. In that split second 5 lads tried to take out the door frame of that hotel room. It was hilarious. Totally terrified. Men can scream. We eventually settled down and ventured back into the room and searched it ... very shaken we were. And as we recounted what had happened and we all remembered the hand lunging through the curtain one of our friends said ... I didn't see any hand. All the rest of us had. Clearly. And we all agreed it was someone's right hand and forearm. He had seen none of that. He was so scared he had been at the back nearest the door lol. He'd been hungry and was about to snack on an orange when the banging started and at some point had thrown the orange at the curtain. It entered the top and dropped down and as it hit the frame it flicked it through the curtain. That's what we had seen. We all constructed a right arm and hand except him. He had ran because we all ran. Bizzare as it was four of us constructed that hand. Not a face. Not a leg, dog, ghostly child. No a right outstretched hand. A man's as well. Still no idea what the banging was caused by to this day but we were on the ground floor. Could have been snagging in another room.
The important thing is did we as a collective concuousness manifest that construct of a hand and experience it equally visually. A shared thought. Cambridge University have measured brain waves about a meter beyond our skull so maybe it travels further.

Another is that utube clip where you get shown a picture of a tropical beach to look and look at the spot in centre. ... ill find it https://youtu.be/MJJBE6ZI7dI

I cant quite remember the effect that this example exploits. Another one explains that because of how the eye works an orange for example is every colour apart from orange. Because the mechanisms that register colours and colour wavelengths get tired and fade to leave the only wavelength that isn't being used. We were taught at school with the colour wheel that spinning turns it white proving that light is made up of a spectrum of colours. Over simplified obviously but that colour is light hitting a surface and only a particular wavelength escapes the surface and we generally all see that colour. But colour blind people see a different colour. Maybe they aren't defective and are actually more evolved. There are some people that can see the infra red spectrum and then you have tetrachromacy which is another level. Another is smell causing taste. Made more apparent because of covid.

The above could also explain away UFOs as nothing more than collective mistaken observation. If it weren't for all the mechanical ... scientific ... supporting ... evidence. 😊

LDV81 · « **Reply #65 on:** May 25, 2023, 08:38 »

Quote from: Lowls on May 25, 2023, 07:36

Do we see reality as it is hahahahahaha jesus. I watched that one and brilliant. He's missing that linking part isn't he between theory and I guess proof. Although there are indications that he is totally right, he can't get to ... andnthat proof or example is true for all experiences. There are a couple of experiences which don't fit with that and one is the experience of gravity because that isn't like most things a perception or experience viewed through the interface. Gravity happens and happens regardless of being witnessed by us through our as he explains it interface. And you can prove that because of planets with no known life or witness with an interface with which to view it. They still have mass which forms the planet. I guess he would argue that ... there is no planet potentially just a set of experiences that cause us to construct the planet using our interface (I'm just using his terminology). It's a very expanded version of if a tree falls in the woods and no one sees it, does it still fall. I've always said yes because something will witness it. A bug or a microbe anything. What he susggests is that if there were no things that possessed a consciousness there, then not only does the tree not fall, but there isn't even a wood. It needs consciousness to construct it in order to exist. But this brings us to his other problem ... if he is right then consciousness requires a witness to exist ... and that's what's missing from his theory. The identity of that witness.

You haven't understood idealism. Consciousness is fundamental and it doesn't require a witness to exist. It just is. It is what it is, and it contains everything. There are many various processes inside of it. Gravity is just a subroutine or a process inside the interface. Matter cannot be fundamental, because such an assumption leaves you with the so-called hard problem of consciousness, and it just can't explain the double-slit experiment and quantum entanglement. Materialism was useful in explaining certain phenomena, but at some point it collapses like a house of cards. Like Newton's theory was superseded by Einstein's relativity theory - materialism is an obsolete model. In idealism, there is no hard problem of consciousness, no problem with the double-slit experiment or quantum entanglement. Watch Bernardo Kastrup's interviews to grasp it. Plato knew it 2500 years ago, in Asia they have known it for thousands of years, in Europe German idealists like Kant knew it too - they just used different metaphors to describe it. Materialism confuses the map with the territory.

https://www.google.com/search?q=spacetime+is+doomed

https://youtu.be/FeuwQHfXyzY?t=124

https://youtu.be/FeuwQHfXyzY?t=962

Lowls · « **Reply #66 on:** May 25, 2023, 10:09 »

Quote from: LDV81 on May 25, 2023, 08:38

You haven't understood idealism. Consciousness is fundamental and it doesn't require a witness to exist. It just is. It is what it is, and it contains everything. There are many various processes inside of it. Gravity is just a subroutine or a process inside the interface. Matter cannot be fundamental, because such an assumption leaves you with the so-called hard problem of consciousness, and it just can't explain the double-slit experiment and quantum entanglement. Materialism was useful in explaining certain phenomena, but at some point it collapses like a house of cards. Like Newton's theory was superseded by Einstein's relativity theory - materialism is an obsolete model. In idealism, there is no hard problem of consciousness, no problem with the double-slit experiment or quantum entanglement. Watch Bernardo Kastrup's interviews to grasp it. Plato knew it 2500 years ago, in Asia they have known it for thousands of years, in Europe German idealists like Kant knew it too - they just used different metaphors to describe it. Materialism confuses the map with the territory.

https://www.google.com/search?q=spacetime+is+doomed

https://youtu.be/FeuwQHfXyzY?t=124

https://youtu.be/FeuwQHfXyzY?t=962

I did only watch the Ted talk admittedly but I understood the gist I thought but he lacked the bridge between only consciousness and our perceived reality. In fairness he asked what if ... but its hard to understand how he plans to complete that link without faith. Math? Acceptance? Because if he can for want of a better word prove that everything is a construct of a ... blind? Misstrained? concuousness then surely it spreads to each of us as a cascade. If he can't its a theory which requires faith until tye cascade reaches people. Remember he did suggest a collective neural connection.

LDV81 · « **Reply #67 on:** May 25, 2023, 10:51 »

Quote from: Lowls on May 25, 2023, 10:09

I did only watch the Ted talk admittedly but I understood the gist I thought but he lacked the bridge between only consciousness and our perceived reality. In fairness he asked what if ... but its hard to understand how he plans to complete that link without faith. Math? Acceptance? Because if he can for want of a better word prove that everything is a construct of a ... blind? Misstrained? concuousness then surely it spreads to each of us as a cascade. If he can't its a theory which requires faith until tye cascade reaches people. Remember he did suggest a collective neural connection.

Hoffman has math equations to support his theory that evolution doesn't promote organisms that see the world as it is, but those that are tuned to "fitness payouts". His team developed those equations with top mathematicians and game theorists. In some interviews he shows those equations. They performed computer simulations to test them. The result was always that organisms tuned to seeing the truth die out.

And this is your "bridge" - the evolution gave us our own version of "perceived reality" a.k.a. spacetime so that we can survive. That's basically it. The purpose of evolution is not showing us the truth. We don't perceive much beyond what is required for survival, and things that we perceive are just like icons in a desktop interface, developed and distorted over millions of years of evolution. The same species shares the same interface, or headset, as he sometimes calls it. The relation of our "perceived reality" to the base reality is similar to the relationship between a Windows/Mac interface and things going on inside a computer on a molecular level. You would never be able to send an email if you had to deal with, or even understand, molecules inside a computer.

Bernardo Kastrup represents a slightly different flavor of idealism with his disassociation model, but for the most part they agree with one another. Thomas Campbell has also a similar theory. They all use different metaphors to express similar ideas. All very interesting.

There was a case of a boy who lived for years without a brain and somehow had his own personality, he smiled when he was happy, and had other facial expressions.
https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/boy-born-without-a-brain-lives-to-be-12-years-old-dies-peacefully
There is another guy in France who lost 90% of his brain and functions normally, he has some local government job. Therefore, consciousness cannot be a product of the brain. The brain is just an icon.

LDV81 · « **Reply #68 on:** May 25, 2023, 11:48 »

Quote from: Lowls on May 25, 2023, 10:09

Remember he did suggest a collective neural connection.

Compare the reality to the Internet, and Hoffman's "conscious agents" to computers/devices connected to the Internet.

As soon as you connect a new device to the Internet, it has (at least theoretically) access to the whole of Internet and can interact with other devices.
There are various types of devices: servers, desktops, phones, etc. performing various functions. Each new connected device didn't, and doesn't contain the Internet within itself, and yet it is able to navigate and function within the Internet according to its role. And on a fundamental level, the Internet is not really a thing in itself, it is just a network of connected devices following certain communication protocols. Moreover, the Internet is generated entirely by the connected devices themselves.

Maybe "conscious agents" are similar in that regard to devices connected to the Internet. But that is just a very simple metaphor, and the reality might be much, much more complex and weird.

Bernardo Kastrup would say something a little different, though - his model uses the mind disassociation metaphor.

Lowls · « **Reply #69 on:** May 25, 2023, 13:14 »

"Moreover, the Internet is generated entirely by the connected devices themselves"

And the people that use it. They too generate aspects of it either by connecting devices or depositing data into it. But until recently it wasn't adaptive. It was adapted. Now .. who the f knows.

He gave a couple of examples ... don't jump off a cliff etc ... evolutionary hacks but that isn't a hack. Thats communicated or learned. Fire hurts - learned. Train - learned.
I'd call it hardwired (hacks). There is a test they do on new borns where they drop them called the moro reflex I think. Drop them and their head should come forward I assume to protect the occipital skull area. But thinking back there are many, well hundreds built into us I guess. Fetal position etc.

Snakes again is learned and spiders taught but cats are hardwired to be fearful of snake like things. It's hard to explain that away with simple evolution and evolutionary vacuums.

What decides the fitness generally. The hacks. Which must be passed on genetically or in the falling off a cliff example I guess comes from ... seeing others falling and dying ... and adaptive behaviour allows us to learn and prevents a repeat which we pass on to others even though we haven't experienced it ourselves and don't know for sure. No witness required its just accepted as a known. Acceptable risk allows us to try anyway - fire example - yes it does hurt - pass it on. Follow the hack - survive. Don't learn/adapt don't survive. Poor decision gene not passed on.

I think I'm getting there.

Big Toe · « **Reply #70 on:** May 26, 2023, 05:35 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 22, 2023, 12:02

I've never seen a UFO. Keep in mind that my cameras haven't either. My night timelapse cameras, usually one but sometimes two, have recorded nothing. There are people with 24/7 sky watching cameras looking for meteorites. There's a world network of those. No space ships. Astronomers around the world, watching day and night. No space ships.

They all use cloaking devices, so you cannot see them. The cloak is only dropped in the presence of a true believer.

Lowls · « **Reply #71 on:** May 26, 2023, 07:07 »

Quote from: Big Toe on May 26, 2023, 05:35

Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 22, 2023, 12:02
I've never seen a UFO. Keep in mind that my cameras haven't either. My night timelapse cameras, usually one but sometimes two, have recorded nothing. There are people with 24/7 sky watching cameras looking for meteorites. There's a world network of those. No space ships. Astronomers around the world, watching day and night. No space ships.

They all use cloaking devices, so you cannot see them. The cloak is only dropped in the presence of a true believer.

I present metalenses 🤫 https://youtu.be/-W5Rp-mFEyY

Well youde be quite surprised at how far this has come 😊

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #72 on:** May 29, 2023, 13:16 »

Quote from: Big Toe on May 26, 2023, 05:35

Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 22, 2023, 12:02
I've never seen a UFO. Keep in mind that my cameras haven't either. My night timelapse cameras, usually one but sometimes two, have recorded nothing. There are people with 24/7 sky watching cameras looking for meteorites. There's a world network of those. No space ships. Astronomers around the world, watching day and night. No space ships.

They all use cloaking devices, so you cannot see them. The cloak is only dropped in the presence of a true believer.

If they show on radar but can't be seen, that's proof.
If they are visible but don't show on radar that's proof.
If you can see them and they are showing on radar that's proof.
And if they aren't there and weren't on the radar, it's because we don't believe in them... but they are still there.

All bases loaded.

Lowls · « **Reply #73 on:** May 29, 2023, 13:37 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 29, 2023, 13:16

Quote from: Big Toe on May 26, 2023, 05:35
Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 22, 2023, 12:02
I've never seen a UFO. Keep in mind that my cameras haven't either. My night timelapse cameras, usually one but sometimes two, have recorded nothing. There are people with 24/7 sky watching cameras looking for meteorites. There's a world network of those. No space ships. Astronomers around the world, watching day and night. No space ships.

They all use cloaking devices, so you cannot see them. The cloak is only dropped in the presence of a true believer.

If they show on radar but can't be seen, that's proof.
If they are visible but don't show on radar that's proof.
If you can see them and they are showing on radar that's proof.
And if they aren't there and weren't on the radar, it's because we don't believe in them... but they are still there.

All bases loaded.

Ahhhh
A radar return is evidence that an object caused a return. What that object is is open for discussion. But I'm not an expert in radar. However very luckily the Nimizt case had been going for 3 weeks. Was part of a fleet performing sea trials. Even had a sub in the area. They had been monitoring the radar returns and had been recording these craft travelling at impossible speeds. In some cases 20,000 mph. But because sea trial windows are very tight you cannot just .. pause ... orders come from fleet and usually you are coordinating a lot of air space, other shipping, recording facilities, crew leave, crew training needs ro take place and you have experienced inspectorate teams performing instruction and all to train ready to enter a operational theatre. So windows are exact. It was one of the Captains officers who said look these things are now entering air space regularly and the pilots are seeing them in instruments, radar has them, there's been a few near misses so we have multiple ship radar returns of craft performing impossible maneuvers and aircraft instruments across a variety of aircraft systems seeing them also. All data is conclusive we must treat this as a air safety issue. If we have a crash and don't know what it is we will be in serious problems.

At this point David Fravor is detailed off along with another crew ro investigate. After his report further pilots also chased them down leading to the Tic Tak video. After which another crews pilots filmed Go Fast and Gimble videos. All with on oard instrument logging the same and ship radar systems tallying.

This wasn't supposed to be released to the public. But it was. By I believed the then head of governmnent UAP task force Luis Elizondo. He'd had enough of the BS and had access to a variety of data both instrumental and visual and crew reports. And on .... but it transpires that it was actually Christopher Karl Mellon, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and later for Security and Information Operations.

But what I always love to ask Sceptics is this ... what would constitute enough proof for you. Because it will never be enough. So what is the point of you.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #74 on:** May 30, 2023, 11:33 »

Quote from: Lowls on May 29, 2023, 13:37

Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 29, 2023, 13:16
Quote from: Big Toe on May 26, 2023, 05:35
Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 22, 2023, 12:02
I've never seen a UFO. Keep in mind that my cameras haven't either. My night timelapse cameras, usually one but sometimes two, have recorded nothing. There are people with 24/7 sky watching cameras looking for meteorites. There's a world network of those. No space ships. Astronomers around the world, watching day and night. No space ships.

They all use cloaking devices, so you cannot see them. The cloak is only dropped in the presence of a true believer.

If they show on radar but can't be seen, that's proof.
If they are visible but don't show on radar that's proof.
If you can see them and they are showing on radar that's proof.
And if they aren't there and weren't on the radar, it's because we don't believe in them... but they are still there.

All bases loaded.
Ahhhh
A radar return is evidence that an object caused a return. What that object is is open for discussion. But I'm not an expert in radar. However very luckily the Nimizt case had been going for 3 weeks. Was part of a fleet performing sea trials. Even had a sub in the area. They had been monitoring the radar returns and had been recording these craft travelling at impossible speeds. In some cases 20,000 mph. But because sea trial windows are very tight you cannot just .. pause ... orders come from fleet and usually you are coordinating a lot of air space, other shipping, recording facilities, crew leave, crew training needs ro take place and you have experienced inspectorate teams performing instruction and all to train ready to enter a operational theatre. So windows are exact. It was one of the Captains officers who said look these things are now entering air space regularly and the pilots are seeing them in instruments, radar has them, there's been a few near misses so we have multiple ship radar returns of craft performing impossible maneuvers and aircraft instruments across a variety of aircraft systems seeing them also. All data is conclusive we must treat this as a air safety issue. If we have a crash and don't know what it is we will be in serious problems.

At this point David Fravor is detailed off along with another crew ro investigate. After his report further pilots also chased them down leading to the Tic Tak video. After which another crews pilots filmed Go Fast and Gimble videos. All with on oard instrument logging the same and ship radar systems tallying.

This wasn't supposed to be released to the public. But it was. By I believed the then head of governmnent UAP task force Luis Elizondo. He'd had enough of the BS and had access to a variety of data both instrumental and visual and crew reports. And on .... but it transpires that it was actually Christopher Karl Mellon, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and later for Security and Information Operations.

But what I always love to ask Sceptics is this ... what would constitute enough proof for you. Because it will never be enough. So what is the point of you.

What would you consider proof that something wasn't a UFO or a mysterious event. Nothing explained is ever enough for you.

My point was not one specific event, but the system of logic that believers use, which they first believe, then make a weak attempt to discover the truth and then declare as a real sighting. In every case, the radar is the proof, no matter what the results. Impossible to fair conclusion based on variable truth.

A number of people have suggested that real science and research involves, repeatable or reproducible evidence. There is also a requirement that theories and suppositions, have statistical study and involve peer review. That doesn't mean that "peers" will agree and there isn't politics involved or some healthy skepticism, but unlike UFOs and conspiracies, there's nearly no requirement of proof or evidence, and reports are released and published, without anyone even reviewing what is claimed, before it's distributed to the shared networks of advocates.

In the end, and my point is, radar evidence is a rubber bag that can be stretched into any shape needed to include how radar proves that the sighting was alien space craft technology, because nothing known could have done that. Instead of looking at how various situations could be weather, or errors or some other phenomena.

And yes I'm skeptical and I inquire and look for solid facts and confirmed evidence. I'm proud of that. Being called a skeptic is an honor.

Looking for the truth involves questioning the accepted mythology.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: UFOs now called UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon) Crowd Stories and photos. (Read 83872 times)

Lowls

Lowls

Annie2022

cascoly

Lowls

Lowls

Annie2022

Lowls

Annie2022

Lowls

Stock4Me

LDV81

Lowls

YadaYadaYada

Lowls

LDV81

Lowls

LDV81

LDV81

Lowls

Big Toe

Lowls

Uncle Pete

Lowls

Uncle Pete

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors