Yep. It's a matter of the observation being made and the conditions under which those observations are being made.

However, my question still stands.

Nope, you didn't get it at all. Observations are distinct from the conclusions about the observations.

Being trust worthy to reproduce an account of an observation is wholly different then being capable of creating a plausible and possibly correct conclusion.

Pilots can make an observation of a phenomena, and be completely incapable of having the required expertise to analyze the observation to create a valid conclusion.

I would posit belief in little greens aliens has as a requisite the lack of expertise to come to the conclusion that is reached.

This is a science and philosophy forum, it saddens me to see so little science and philosophy discussed here.

Hmm...Ok. I see what you are getting at.

However, have you actually looked into some of the " explanations " that the people with the expertise have come up with for some of the things that have been seen by perfectly reliable people??

Another question. Would it be fair to assume that an airline pilot, someone who has been flying for many years, would have enough " expertise " to have a pretty good idea of whether or not humans have the technology and capability to build something that can move in the ways that have been reported??

I mean, not all of the reports have been of distant objects on the horizon. Some of them have been reported as being right outside the plane.

Granted, there are an awful lot of reports that can be explained away easily.

But there are others that can't be so easily dismissed.

Again, what would you make of the O'Hare sighting and the fact that the object went straight up in the air and punched a hole in the heavy cloud cover?

I have had discussions like this a few times in other forums.

I've seen the " Purple dragon in the garage " argument.

I have had Occam's Razor thrown around.

It basically all comes down to whether or not your philosophy will allow the questioning of what is known.

For some, their philosophy doesn't allow them to think that we might not be totally unique in the Universe. For others, they withhold judgment until " A ufo lands on the White House lawn and...."

I withhold opinion on topics I myself either a) have no direct demonstrable evidence to base an opinion on, or b) expertise that would allow circumstantial evidence to prop up a plausible scenario.

ie, the only good answer is the honest answer . . I don't know, not I find it likely, not I find it unlikely, for even the probabilities require justifications that cannot be honestly made.

One single fact prevents me from taking eye witness accounts of really anything very seriously . . . memory and indeed conscious experience is a fabrication from stimulus. That is why demonstrability is such a keen aspect of science.

Yeah, well....the " experts " don't know either.

But they are always loathe to admit to it.

A lot of it would also come down to what one's philosophy would allow as " plausible ".

Sometimes does not equal always.

Many eyewitness's are discounted, as two people seeing the same exact event will recall it differently.

As to why some people don't believe the police when they say they've seen UFO's, I have a better question... Whey don't people believe presidents and governments who have come forward?

BTW - many highly religious paintings from hundreds of years ago portray UFO's in them. What's up with that? Back then people didn't talk about UFO's, so making sure one was included in a painting that you're painting must have meant something important to them....

Yeah, that's what I said.

Well, terrorist attacks have actually happened. Terrorists are real--have, well, been observed in reality. I think that may be the main reason why the government would be concerned about those things.

As for aliens, no one has seen them apart from semi-conscious (pre- or post-sleep) states and after having been heavily medicated during surgery or inside a Science-Fiction story or film. So, we should favor that "alternative" explanation, why...?

No, I have not looked at the "reports" myself--nor would that make any difference whatsoever. Subjective, spurious, circumstantial! Take your pick--all these adjectives apply to such accounts!

Like, uh, "Tribles" goes on to say, UFO's are pretty much synonymous with aliens. End of story. Why shouldn't there be a rational explanation--well, there is one; there is no evidence, not one ounce, that these "phenomena" have anything to do with non-human entities of any kind. No one has ever seen a non-human, extraterrestrial life form, so, why should we not now divert to a RATIONAL--if not wholly conclusive--explanation, prefer an infinitely more rational explanation, over some convoluted whack-story only substantiated by fantasy, speculation, and imagined tangible evidence?

Exactly.

I've seen a UFO with my own eyes so I cannot doubt their existence. Not just a light in the sky either, it was a large, slow moving, silent, v-shaped craft that looked the size of a football field. There were half a dozen people with me too who all saw it slowly fly by for a few minutes. Years later, I decided to look on the internet about it cause it intrigued me and many others have described seeing the same UFO

Personally though, I think their secret military aircraft and not invaders from outer space. Who knows though.

Z, on your profile you say you're a "Christian - other". Wouldn't angels or demons be considered other worldly entities, or if you will; alien? It seems that you may actually believe in aliens, just not in the classic sense

It's very obvious that you have done no research to support your position, so your sweeping generalizations about the various conditions of the people involved is not supporting your argument in any way.

Like, uh, "Tribles" goes on to say, UFO's are pretty much synonymous with aliens. End of story. Why shouldn't there be a rational explanation--well, there is one; there is no evidence, not one ounce, that these "phenomena" have anything to do with non-human entities of any kind. No one has ever seen a non-human, extraterrestrial life form, so, why should we not now divert to a RATIONAL--if not wholly conclusive--explanation, prefer an infinitely more rational explanation, over some convoluted whack-story only substantiated by fantasy, speculation, and imagined tangible evidence?

Again, having done no research whatsoever, your sweeping generalization of there being " no evidence " are misinformed. As is your blanket statement that " no one has ever seen " an alien life form.

why should we not now divert to a RATIONAL--if not wholly conclusive--explanation, prefer an infinitely more rational explanation, over some convoluted whack-story only substantiated by fantasy, speculation, and imagined tangible evidence?

Again, you speak from a position of no knowledge whatsoever.

The evidence, in many, MANY cases, is far from being " imagined ".

The " infinitely more rational " explanations you speak of are actually far from being rational in some cases.

You make blind generalizations, speak with no knowledge at all, and basically insult anyone who thinks differently than you do.

That's fine. You go ahead and keep doing that. For every case you could ( but refuse to ) come up with where there was a " rational " explanation, there are several that weren't rationally explained.

But hey. You would refuse to accept that and just swallow whatever it is you are fed.

Uh oh. Would that make you a drug induced, half asleep " whack job "????

Okay...lets look at some facts here...

CR401 Fact Versus Expert Witnesses.
There are two types of witnesses: fact witnesses and expert witnesses. Usually a fact witness can testify only about facts that (he) (she) can see, hear, touch, taste or smell. An expert witness has scientific, technical or other special knowledge that allows the witness to give an opinion. An expert’s knowledge can come from training, education, experience or skill. Experts can testify about facts, and they can give their opinions in their area of expertise.

You may have to weigh one expert’s opinion against another’s. In weighing the opinions of experts, you may look at their qualifications, the reasoning process the experts used, and the overall credibility of their testimony. You may also look at things like bias, consistency, and reputation.

Use your common sense in evaluating all witnesses, including expert witnesses. You do not have to accept an expert’s opinion. You may accept it all, reject it all, or accept part and reject part. Give it whatever weight you think it deserves.

CR407 Law Enforcement Officer’s Testimony.
You have heard the testimony of a law enforcement officer. The fact that a witness is employed in law enforcement does not mean that (his) (her) testimony deserves more or less consideration than that of any other witness. It is up to you to give any witness’s testimony whatever weight you think it deserves.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CR404 Eyewitnesses Identification [Long instruction].
An important question in this case is the identification of the defendant as the person who committed the crime. The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed AND that the defendant was the person who committed the crime. If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is the person who committed the crime, you must find the defendant not guilty.

The testimony you have heard concerning identification represents the witness’s expression of (his) (her) belief or impression. You don’t have to believe that the identification witness was lying or not sincere to find the defendant not guilty. It is enough that you conclude that the witness was mistaken in (his) (her) belief or impression.

Many factors affect the accuracy of identification. In considering whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is the person who committed the crime, you should consider the following:

(1) Did the witness have an adequate opportunity to observe the person who committed the crime? In answering this question, you should consider:

(a) the length of time the witness observed that person;
(b) the distance between the witness and that person;
(c) the extent to which that person’s features were visible and undisguised;
(d) the lighting conditions at the time of observation;
(e) whether there were any distractions occurring during the observation;
(f) any other circumstance that affected the witness’s opportunity to observe the person committing the crime.


(2) Did the witness have the capacity to observe the person committing the crime? In answering this question, you should consider whether the capacity of the witness was impaired by:
(a) stress or fright at the time of observation;
(b) personal motivations, biases or prejudices;
(c) uncorrected visual defects;
(d) fatigue or injury;
(e) drugs or alcohol.


[You should also consider whether the witness is of a different race than the person identified. Identification by a person of a different race may be less reliable than identification by a person of the same race.]

(3) Even if the witness had adequate opportunity and capacity to observe the person who committed the crime, the witness may not have focused on that person unless the witness was aware that a crime was being committed. In that instance you should consider whether the witness was sufficiently attentive to that person at the time the crime occurred. In answering this question you should consider whether the witness knew that a crime was taking place during the time (he) (she) observed the person’s actions.

(4) Was the witness’s identification of the defendant completely the product of the witness’s own memory? In answering this question, you should consider:
(a) the length of time that passed between the witness’s original observation and the time the witness identified the defendant;
(b) the witness’s mental capacity and state of mind at the time of the identification:
(c) the exposure of the witness to opinions, to photographs, or to any other information or influence that may have affected the independence of the identification of the defendant by the witness;
[(d) any instances when the witness either identified or failed to identify the defendant;]
[(e) any instances when the witness gave a description of the person that was either consistent or inconsistent with the defendant’s appearance;]
(f) the circumstances under which the defendant was presented to the witness for identification.


[You may take into account that an identification made by picking the defendant from a group of similar individuals is generally more reliable than an identification made from the defendant being presented alone to the witness.]

[You may also take into account that identifications made from seeing the person are generally more reliable than identifications made from a photograph.]

[A witness’s level of confidence in (his) (her) identification of the perpetrator is one of many factors that you may consider in evaluating whether the witness correctly identified the perpetrator. However, a witness who is confident that (he) (she) correctly identified the perpetrator may be mistaken.]

Again, I emphasize that it is the prosecution’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is the person who committed the crime.

Until UFO's are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which they haven't been as of yet.....
It's all just a bunch of hear say.
If you believe in UFO's fine, that doesn't mean everybody has to, Until Ufo's are proven beyond a reasonable doubt none of this really matters.I believe your question has been answered to your original post, you just are intent on making everyone else believe the same as you do.....so for the last time, can you prove to me UFO's really exist? Didn't think so.

Probably to some LOL! Actually, I gave up drugs years before. Maybe it was an acid flashback and everyone there was having the same one at the same time!!!!! Woa! That's trippy

HA!

Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, you, okay. Were being serious.

Excuse me.

Ha! I'm sorry, so sorry, but what "research" would you like me to do? Look up all these magical, personal anecdotes--"eye witness accounts"--and what? What then? Just simply buy into it all? No.

My argument's basis is logic, pure logic--no, just plain common sense. People's perception is flawed--people lie--people can quite easily lie, just because they want to be famous or feel special. Or, they just saw a military aircraft of some kind. Or perhaps they were doing drugs--all of these are quite more probable than aliens!

You honestly don't think it is a grand, GRAND assumption to say that these "sightings" are alien? That's NOT an assumption? Why not avoid seeming eccentric until some *hard,* tangible evidence is found--like, I don't know, a physical alien being, for instance? Even an alien freakin' craft--an alien pair of boots. Alien contact lenses. Anything.

And I don't mean images that one might find on one of those "debunking" websites eventually; I mean physical evidence from a *legit'* source.

Yes, well, anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Do we have the body of an alien life form anywhere? Oh, do you have one? I'll believe you if you send it to me; or just a piece of its antenna. That'll do.

There is no tangible evidence. None. Zero. Zilch. Show me the fruition of some "research" that involves *tangible* evidence, and I'll be...vaguely willing to look at it.

And, uh, again, there is no "knowledge" to be had beyond circumstantial claims.

Oh yes, my blindness prevails. How ever will I see the light? The green, undulating lights from above?

Show me any "case" where tangible evidence is uncovered. Any one. Just one. No, not arbitrary claims, physical evidence. I want to see the aliens myself. Or should I just believe these "eye witnesses"?

...

Example of a more rational explanation.

Uh. No.

It is supernatural versus natural--aliens, if they did exist, would still be natural, physical beings...obviously? o_O

How do we know that these "aliens" are part of the natural, physical world and aren't supernatural? How do we know that what we are calling aliens in this modern time aren't the same beings that the people of ancient times called angels and demons? Certain people in the Bible physically saw angels so apparently they can manifest themselves in this physical world

Not saying that's what I believe, just something I've tossed around in my head a bit

Okay. <:|

Please, calm down. There is no need to get so troubled, miss.

This is really cool, by the way. Why not conflate every religion and philosophy and conspiracy theory together? Yes! That sounds like a good time to me, that's for sure.

*Rubs eyes*

If God created another (human-like) species elsewhere--on another planet, in another galaxy, in another dimension, etc.--it is of no consequence to us--if not only because we will most likely never interact; and, since we have not, that sentiment presently stands. But, guess what? Whatever "they" would be would not fall into the category of the "supernatural," anyway. If anything, "they" would simply fall under a different definition of "natural"--"natural" would mean something else to them. Why? First, because "natural" is a relative term. Second, because they would still be created beings, beings that do not fall under the category of "angels" because they were a specific group designated for a specific task (being in the presence of God and serving Him there and on earth when commanded [among other odd things in Revelation that are too convoluted to delve into right now]); 1/3 of them fell and became known as demons. A little lesson in Christian theology for you there. Point being, aliens would not be and will never be synonymous with angels or demons.

Elijah taken up in a "chariot of fire", Ezikiel's wheel within a wheel, stars (angels) falling from the heavens, satan a talking reptile (serpent) in the garden, not to mention Revelations.... I'm just saying there may be a connection. That is all .....mister

Thanks for the theology 101 too. May have been news to me ten years ago

RECORDED VOICE
Attention. Attention. The hyperdrive
sequence is now terminated. Please
observe that the no smoking signs
have growrrr...

The voice runs down.

DOOLITTLE
Well... now what? What do, you have
for us now. Boiler?

BOILER
(checking his readouts)
Not much. Nothing at all in this
sector.

DOOLITTLE
Find me something, I don't care
where it is.

BOILER
Well, I show a 95% probability of
sentient life in the Horsehead
Nebula...

DOOLITTLE
fri*k that cheet.

BOILER
Well, it is kind of a long shot...

DOOLITTLE
It's a goddamn wild goose chase.
Remember when Commander Powell found
that 99 plus probability of sentient
life in the Magellanic Cloud?

BOILER
Well, there's the possibility of...

DOOLITTLE
Remember what we found? Fourteen
light years for a f*cking mindless
vegetable that looked like a limp
balloon and went squawk and let a
fart when you touched it. Remember?

BOILER
All right, then...

DOOLITTLE
So don't give me any of that
sentient life crap. Find me
something I can blow up.

A LIGHT flares on Pinback's board. He looks up.

PINBACK
New star.
(no reaction)
Hey, guess what? I got a new star on
the readout.

DOOLITTLE
(not looking up)
Which one?

PINBACK
Another unknown. Not on the charts.
A red dwarf.

DOOLITTLE
Any planets?

PINBACK
Yeah. Eight, it says here.

DOOLITTLE
Any of 'em any good?

PINBACK
(scans the board)
Naah. All stable.

Doolittle loses interest.

PINBACK
(cont'd)
What are you gonna name it?

DOOLITTLE
(not looking up)
What?

PINBACK
The new star. What are you gonna
name it?

DOOLITTLE
Who cares. Don't bother me.

Pinback's mouth tightens. A pause.

PINBACK
Commander Powell would have named
it.

DOOLITTLE
Commander Powell is dead.

Involuntarily, Pinback glances at Commander Powell's empty, burned
seat. The panels behind it sputter.

PINBACK
Come on, Doolittle, give it a name.

DOOLITTLE
Fred.

PINBACK
Wha?

DOOLITTLE
I hereby name this star Fred.

How logical is it to dismiss something out of hand, and claim that everyone who has ever seen something, including military personnel, are on drugs or out of their minds??

The funny thing is, everyone I have run into that argues the same positions you do always falls back to " I'm just thinking logically " when, in fact, dismissal of an idea using broad generalizations with no basis FOR those generalizations, is far from logical.

It's also not " logical " to think that, with all the billions of stars in the Universe, that we are the only life form out there.

Yep. Seven people, all seeing the same thing, having a collective acid flashback/mass hallucination.

That seems SO much more reasonable.

i think the evidence is usually there that people see
something at least...that is why it is called
UFO. usually it turns out there is a non-alien explanation.

but not always.

sometimes we just never find out what it was...

and it might be because their technology is much more
advanced than ours!