Hmm, I guess the hint about hyperbole sailed right past you, didn’t it? Would you like to show me anywhere in the comments thus far where anyone has made any assertion like you relate above?

(continuing): Are all these people stupid, such as -Major Wilfried De Brouwer, former Adjunct Chief of Staff of the Belgian Air Force.

OR the Russian Air force generals and cosmonauts here ;

Well, let’s see. On the latter two, I see nothing resembling any real information. One link contains a mere mention of something that the Chilean captain reported, but no details whatsoever. The other gives some much more detailed descriptions, but again, what? “I saw something, it looked like an antenna, but was probably farther away.”

And from this we can determine… what, exactly?

I made a point above, and in your haste to show me up, you missed it completely. Let me try to make it again: What do you have?

Distance, size, vector, substance, physical affect… anything?

You have an eyewitness who saw something. It didn’t fit with anything he knew of. Am I correct?

So what can you determine from this? Not infer, mind you – no guesswork or imagination, no, “Since we don’t know, it must be aliens,” because that’s faulty logic. What do you really, honestly, have? Because I don’t see jack. A big antenna? Morphing lights? Without having to impugn the witness at all, and ignoring the idea that there was any illusion at work (which is a huge bone to throw you that isn’t warranted), you haven’t established anything useful.

Did you note that no one said, “extra-terrestrial,” or anything resembling it? Did you note the absence of (pardon the phrase) intelligent design, direction, or control? The reports you yourself are providing as evidence do not actually support your point.

Now, for the Geocities page. No cites, no sources, lots of scattered details. Facts? None that are visible. In order to determine if the page isn’t just a pile of made-up bullhockey, I’d have to search out each individual account on my own.

I’ve had, and discarded, a hobby of UFO investigation in the recent past. It wasn’t worth my time, then or now. I can just take the shortcut and say, “Don’t bother me until you produce some useful source material. And by that I mean something published somewhere other than a website.”

Or I can use my own shortcuts. Such as, one of the contributors to the site’s information is a UFO book author. Good – they’ve always proven to be upright, fair, and unbiased. Nobody would ever write a UFO book to garner money from credulous believers.

Yes, that was sarcasm.

Sound petty? You’re right, it is. If you like, we can skip down to the photos of the “F-16 radar video.” Hmmm, doesn’t look like any kind of F-16 display I’ve ever seen, nor can find while searching. So no, I don’t believe it. I will willingly retract that statement if you find an example someplace reputable (i.e., not another Geocities site), but I’m not doing the legwork myself. Five sites and six pages of photos from my search was enough.

No, I’m not done with that yet. You’ll notice the caption says that the object was moving at 990 knots, or Mach 1.5. Um, highly doubtful. Why? Because I have yet to see any kind of tracking or targeting display that can determine what the target object is doing. And it wouldn’t be much use. What is displayed is typically the info on what the pilot’s own aircraft is doing, since that’s far more useful (and easier to determine). Radar measurements take place from the vantage point, or reference point if you will, of the aircraft the radar is mounted within. Even airspeed is almost always given in KIAS, Knots Indicated AirSpeed, because it depends on measuring the airflow around the aircraft, which may be in an airmass that is itself moving. Planes need that airflow to operate – it’s not useful to know how fast you are going in relation to the ground if the tailwind you’re experiencing means you’re about to stall.

Moreover, what’s the range of the object? Because yes, that’s crucial, especially if you want to shoot something at it. Targeting reticule? I mean, anything useful? I have video games that provide better HUDs than that.

Basically, the photos are bullhockey. So, um, how much time should I waste on crap like that? Whatever it should be, I’ve definitely passed it by now.

(continuing): I like the hyperbole about itty bitty craft. Both petty and irrelevant, well done.

Ah, didn’t like the “hyperbole” comment I made, and trying to throw it back at me, I see. If you like, we just go out out on the playground and throw sand if that suits you better.

My comment was about traversing some really vast interstellar distances and defying physics as we know it in something the size of a house, or smaller. And this doesn’t strike you as unlikely, much less ridiculous?

Let me save you a bit of time and project your argument out before you do: “Well, they obviously have super-advanced technology and it would be no problem for them to hide an energy source, life-support system, investigative and observational gear, and most of all, the inertia-violating device, in a suitcase if they wanted to.” Was I close?

You can imagine anything you want. Their power comes from purple jellybeans if you like. The point of most skeptics (me included) isn’t what you can speculate on – it’s, “What can you demonstrate?” In other words, do you have a reason to believe they have this technology? And can you do it without resorting to circular arguments such as, “I saw an alien spacecraft, and they’d have to have this technology in order to get here, therefore they do”?

No. Show me how you know they’re aliens, first. Or that they have this technology. Whichever you like. But produce something other than guesswork. And a badly mislabeled photograph of a smudge ain’t it.

(continuing): As for dark matter – oh the arrogance.

Yeah right.

Um, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this exactly what you were trying to do with those links you provided above? I mean, somebody saw something indistinct, and therefore, it must be ETs?

This is called, “confirmation bias.” Used in the wrong places, it opens you up to getting your butt handed to you. Best to simply leave it be and apply your standards of proof to everything indiscriminately, whether it supports what you want to believe or not. That way, you’re at least honest with yourself.

But on to your comments about dark matter. You would certainly have a point, if you were talking about one observation. And believe it or not, this idea is routinely considered in scientific circles – getting fooled by one’s equipment happens more times than we’d like.

However, the gravitational affects on light that led to the concept of dark matter have been observed by countless man-made machines the world over (and even above it). And lest you think it’s complicated, what it boils down to is direct observations by telescope and a little bit of math.

Could the math be wrong? Sure! But if it was, then we’d see this effect a lot more often. And you can search back on this blog and see that the gravitational effects do not always correspond with visible galaxies anyway – it was big news when they found the effect offset from a galaxy. Bad math, and bad equipment, can’t explain that one away.

(continuing): 3) or that the â??absenceâ?? of something the machine is not capable of measuring in relation to its other measurements does not prove that this â??absenceâ?? exists – the fact is that unless something exists and can be measured then its existence may be POSITIED but NOT PROVED.

You really should do a little research into dark matter before you start harping on it, because it appears (from this sentence) that you have some skewed ideas of the concept.

However, I still think I know what you’re getting at, and shocking as it might be, I’m agreeing with you. Dark matter has been posited but not proven. And never directly observed, much less sampled, handled, or thrown at the neighbor’s cat.

The thing is, you haven’t really made a point – anyone that is familiar with the dark matter idea beyond a passing glance knows this, and has never maintained otherwise. And it would seem your point is that since we don’t have dark matter pinned down, we can’t denigrate the obvious evidence of extra-terrestrial visitation. Do I have that right? (And this is an honest question).

Because they don’t really compare. Dark matter was discovered, and remains, because of direct and tested observations. No one says it’s a true form of matter, only that it exhibits behavior as if it was gravitationally massive.

Extra-terrestrial visitation, on the other hand, suffers from huge inconsistency across the spectrum of observations, has produced no worthwhile physical evidence, has nothing whatsoever that can be tested, and requires exceptions to the laws of physics that have never been observed and theoretically do not hold up. For instance, faster-than-light travel, by all models, cannot take place with anything that exhibits the traits of matter – or for that matter, not even theoretical particles, much less a massive and coherent collection of them.

And it’s not a matter of denying them. Scientists the world over would be absolutely delighted to see something like FTL – I mean, backflips all the way home and back again. Even just a bit of metal that didn’t match anything we’ve seen on Earth would be worth research grants and recognition beyond imagination. The thing is, people that have spent their lifetimes working in physics, far beyond what you or I will ever learn, know how many things lock together and rely on each other. FTL, or tiny energy sources, or inertia reduction/removal, are not simple concepts – you have to account for practically all laws of physics as we know them just to change one single aspect of them.

And to show that you have actually seen this, you’re going to need more than smudges on film, anomalous radar tracks, and, “It looked like an antenna.” I’m not being nasty or sarcastic, I’m simply trying to get you to understand the enormity of what you’re proposing and how little you have to demonstrate it.

One more small comment, because I’ve seen this mistake repeated countless times on this and many other forums. You came off on the defensive (twice) because you believed the majority of posters here maintained that aliens do not (and/or can not) exist.

The viewpoint of many here, and definitely of myself, is not to assert that something cannot exist. Instead, it is to require that such an existence be demonstrated. That’s the skeptical (or as I prefer, “critical thinking”) viewpoint. Many things might exist, but in order for me to consider them as likely, I have to see good evidence of such. Until then, they remain only speculative.

I know you won’t believe this, but I personally would be fascinated beyond description at finding out there was extra-terrestrial life. However, I won’t let that turn itself into wishful thinking or fooling myself. Been there, done that. I’d rather deal in reality.

What works far better, IMHO, is to take a surplus weather balloon, inflate with a helium/air mix (so as to get only as much lift as you really need… Helium’s getting expensive!) and then hang a set of “signal” fireworks underneath, taped along the length of a flare type sparkler (which acts like a five or six minute fuse) … release this bugger over town, and the light, reflected off the balloon’s envelope, (sometimes in varying colors) will make even the local pilots think they’re being invaded….

The nice thing is, with the fireworks burning off, it continues to rise, long after the flames are out. Much safer!

Then track the reactions of the populace… see how often the reports are exagerrated, and how officials try to tell people it was just a re-entering satillite… or swamp gas…

The geocities link you provide is credulous nonsense. I mean, Roswell? Are you serious?

The second link is to an unsourced story on a pro-UFO blog. Hardly evidence.

The third, as above.

I’m happy to concede that people frequently see things in the sky they can’t explain. Hence UNIDENTIFIED flying objects. Surely no-one takes the ET hypothesis seriously any more though?
=========

As for dark matter, anyone with just some simple astronomical equipment can measure the rotation curve of a galaxy and see for themself that it doesn’t match the predictions generated from the assumption that we can see all the mass. Ergo there must be something else: dark matter.

There are no repeatable observations to be made of UFOs.

No, it doesn’t. There’s not a single phenomenon observed to date that is satisfactorily explained by the phrase “god did it”.

Sir Isaac Newton of all people used to fly kites at night with
laterns attached to them (presumably light ones – get it?)
and then go to the pubs the next day to listen to the local
peasants talk about the ominous “comets” they saw in the
night sky last evening and what they might portend.

So carry on, Great Britain! You’re doing a great job in the
fake UFO department.

oh great one,

please take time from running the universe to read this site here ;

http://www.geocities.com/area51/vault/9054/ufobelg.html

Are all these people stupid, such as -Major Wilfried De Brouwer, former Adjunct Chief of Staff of the Belgian Air Force.

Or is this man stupid Rodrigo Bravo, Captain of the Chilean Armyâ??s Fifth Division.

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/6500-chilean-military-says-ufos-exist-shows-photos-at-conference/

OR the Russian Air force generals and cosmonauts here ;

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc522.htm

Yeah, they are all sooooooo stupid but oh wise one you are so wise.

I like the hyperbole about itty bitty craft. Both petty and irrelevant, well done.

As for dark matter – oh the arrogance.

A machine (mad by man so thereby inherently imperfect) makes an approximate imperfect reading of things that suggest the possible existence something that does not exist – so therefore this imperfect machine that makes an imperfect reading of something that does not exist proves the existence of something that does not exist.

Yeah right.

The idea that just because a man made machine makes a measurement does not mean ;

1) the machine is working properly, (the machine may be working in a way that gives a false reading)

2) the measurement is correct (the measurements may be wrong )

3) or that the ‘absence’ of something the machine is not capable of measuring in relation to its other measurements does not prove that this ‘absence’ exists – the fact is that unless something exists and can be measured then its existence may be POSITIED but NOT PROVED.

Inductive reasoning may assert the existence of something but until that something is discovered, mesured, defined and catalogued then it does not exist. And that applies to Dark Matter.

That is the basic facts on dark matter – its existence is posited not proven.

Until then its existence is the same as UFO’s – in that both could theoretically exist, but until conclusive proof exists then they are not existing at all.

Just like people who believe in UFOs, you people who believe in dark matter believe in it based on observations not directly related to the actual phenomena. ( as both no UFO evidence exists to prove ufos exist and no direct evidence exists to prove Dark Matter exists).

Oh the irony.

See thee tomorrow oh wise one.