Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: UFO

Expand Messages
  • Dan
    Travis is a hotspot for paranormal activity. I ve heard of that. And googling, travis afb the second item in the autocomplete list is travis afb sightings.
    Message 1 of 316 , Sep 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Travis is a hotspot for paranormal activity. I've heard of that. And googling, "travis afb" the second item in the autocomplete list is "travis afb sightings."

      Okay, so they didn't have cameras. Regarding what people generally do, the problem is if you don't collect good corroborating evidence, one is left with just eyewitness reports. In essence, if you're really interested in finding out if there are anything to these sightings -- as opposed to just grandstanding about how skeptics don't trust eyewitness accounts (and I certainly don't; if all you have is eyewitness accounts, then they amount to me to very little or nothing) -- then you need to spread the word so that ever more people start to use the tools we now have (i.e., many people -- maybe even most people in some areas -- now has a mobile device on their person with a build-in camera and GPS (SatNav)) to corroborate when an incident happens. Heck, if it were me, I'd try to collect as much information as possible and to get others around me to do the same. (I've pointed this out before. I travel and hike in many countries. I'm often with one companion or a group that all have cameras and mobile devices with photo, video, and GPS capability. If a UFO ever happens to put itself on display whilst I'm around, I'm going to do my best to record it. Ditto for Bigfoot or anything else along those lines.)

      I didn't read other thing yet, but the problem is that if you don't enough evidence, you really can't tell, with aerial phenomena, whether things things witnessed are fifty feet up moving at high speed, a thousand feet up moving slowly, or moving in some way that they look like their hovering (as with a jet far off that appears to be standing still). It's not some argument from possible mistakes here, but that human perceptual systems simply don't give any unambiguous accounting of speed, size, distance, or actual trajectory. Try yourself estimating the size of something with no reference objects -- which is basically the condition of the sky (unless there's a plane or some other object right next to whatever you're viewing; and one has to be sure they actually are next to each other and don't merely appear to be so). And ten million people can make the same error here with estimating speed, size, distance, and flight path. The errors, in fact, are systematic and not random because of the way the human visual systems work.

      This doesn't mean there's nothing to all these sightings. It just means one can't tell from the eyewitness reports what there is. (My guess here is some of these things will never be resolved and might even be unresolvable simply because the trail is too old and there's little to go on.)

      Regards,

      Dan

      From: Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...>
      To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 12:08 AM
      Subject: Re: UFO/was Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Roy A. Childs Week

       
      Travis is a hot-spot for UFO sightings?  First I've heard of it.  I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case during the fifteen or so years I worked on the base and outlying areas.

      I know exactly where they saw it, because I was taken out to the spot.  Recently I Googled it again just for old time's sake.  This occurred in the late-nineties, so cell photographic technology wasn't particularly widespread then (at least I don't remember people having them around then).  High school kids, of course, don't generally run around with cameras, unless they've located a peephole to the girls' locker room. ;)

      In both observations the phenomenon was fairly clear.  I mean, it really doesn't matter too much if an object is playing tag with the horizons.  Regardless of its height, it has to be moving at pretty incredible speeds.  I can't think of any illusion that would account for an aerial object doing what they described.   In addition, they had the contrast of other lit aircraft lumbering back and forth across the night sky.

      The triangular craft was very close.  The craft floated in directly over a small hill that was just up from the road.  I'd guess you'd walk between 50 - 75 yards from the road to reach the top of the hill,   I walked to the top in around a minute.  I'd guess its peak was perhaps sixty or seventy feet.   In any case, it was a small hill, which my son said its top was partly lit by three fairly dull lights.  I don't think there's an issue around identifying it hovering or its basic shape or light configuration.

      In the nineties I don't thing the triangular craft had been photographed as much or were as well-known as they are then.  In the early to mid-nineties I'd begun strongly to question the USG official account of UFOs, but I wasn't much of a student of the phenomenon at that point.  At that time I thought a UFO wouldn't be triangular (I was still stuck in the disc or spherical mode), so I tended to agree with my son that it was US Military.  

      With reports like these - and there are thousands of them all over the world, not uncommonly with accompanying photographs - I think there are some fairly common ways people react:: 1) they believe the person (s) could be lying; 2) the person was mistaken about what they saw (tricked by an illusion or mistaking a mundane aerial object for an anomalous one); 3) hmmmm...there might be something to that, but who knows?  (2) usually involves a lot of possibilities being thrown out for alternative explanations.

      It's always possible that some illusion or misperception  was involved, but simply raising that possibility, as I pointed out in my Argument from Possibility Fallacy post, does not actually constitute an argument.  The only way raising a possibility amounts to an argument is if it can be shown to be equally or more probable than what the observation seems to indicate.  A good example of a substantive possibility with a reasonable probability would be the Mexican Oil Fire UFOs, where a Mexican Air Force sighting of what appeared to be several luminous objects corresponded very nicely with fires from nearby oil rigs directly in the line of sight (or so analysts have determined).  In this case, after fourteen or so years, I haven't been able to come up with what I consider to be probable mundane explanations for either of these aerial sightings.  

      Jeff

      On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
      I've heard of that view before. I've also heard theories that the Nazis had the technology and it was smuggled out of Germany at the end of the war. It's made for some entertaining (to me) science fiction stories.

      As for the triangular craft sighting, it's obviously swamp gas. :)

      No, seriously, when did he and his friends see it? Where? Did they take photographs? The problem with what you've given us here is that some of this might be a misinterpretation. Yes, they likely saw something and it might have been triangular, but how did they judge distance and speed? Without a reliable estimate on both of these, one can't really be sure it was moving at high speeds, was hovering, or what have you. (On hovering, I've seen jets that appeared to be hovering, but it was more their distance and their direction of movement that made it seem like they were still in the sky.)

      Also, Travis is a hub for UFO sightings. That doesn't throw water on this or other sightings. Just noting that it appears to be a hot spot.

      Regards,

      Dan
    • Roderick Long
      I wish I were joking:
      Message 316 of 316 , Oct 4, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I wish I were joking:





        From: Scott Bieser <scott@...>
        To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2012 11:15 PM
        Subject: Re: Textbooks/was Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Roy A. Childs Week

        Wait, what, seriously? There's a textbook actually making that claim? I
        thought you were joking.



        On 10/4/2012 10:04 PM, Roderick Long wrote:
        >
        >
        > Hmm, I wonder if that was somehow the garbled origin of the textbook story.
        >
        > R.
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > *From:* Scott Bieser <scott@...>
        > *To:* LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        > *Sent:* Thursday, October 4, 2012 10:53 PM
        > *Subject:* Re: Textbooks/was Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Roy A. Childs Week
        >
        > Funny you should mention that.
        >
        > There was a story passed around conservative circles during the
        > Goldwater campaign (which my father was involved with), to the effect
        > that President Eisenhower was able to bring the North Koreans to the
        > bargaining table in 1953 by sending some missiles to South Korea of the
        > sort that could carry nuclear warheads -- these did not, in order to
        > provide an out in case they got called out on it, but the N.K.'s were
        > led to believe they did.
        >
        > On reflection, I wonder if that story spread to the opposing camp in the
        > '64 election and became the inspiration for the infamous
        > little-girl-and-the-bomb TV ad.
        >
        >
        > On 10/4/2012 9:10 PM, Roderick Long wrote:
        >>
        >>
        >> Well, we know history textbooks are written by historians.  That's how
        >> we know about the Korean War being won via atomic bombs.
        >>
        >> R.
        >>
        >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >> *From:* jeff_riggenbach <haljam@...
        > <mailto:haljam@...>>
        >> *To:* LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com>
        >> *Sent:* Thursday, October 4, 2012 4:44 PM
        >> *Subject:* Textbooks/was Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Roy A. Childs Week
        >>
        >> Perhaps he's under the impression that science textbooks are written by
        >> scientists.
        >>
        >> JR
        >>
        >> --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com>
        >> <mailto:LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com>>, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
        >>>
        >>> Textbooks? These are usually untrustworthy, no?
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> From: Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...>
        >>> To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com>
        >> <mailto:LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com>>
        >>> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 1:33 PM
        >>> Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Roy A. Childs Week
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> No.  Science textbooks.  I trust scientists rather more than
        >> government spokespeople.
        >>>
        >>> Jeff ;)
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Roderick Long <berserkrl@...> wrote:
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> >
        >>> >How do you know that the gravity you're currently experiencing isn't
        >> normal for Mars?  Because some government textbook says otherwise?
        >>> >
        >>> >R.
        >>> >
        >>> >
        >>> >
        >>> >
        >>> >
        >>> >
        >>> >________________________________
        >>> > From: Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...>
        >>> >To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com>
        >> <mailto:LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com>>
        >>> >Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 12:24 PM
        >>> >Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Roy A. Childs Week
        >>> >
        >>> >
        >>> >
        >>> >
        >>> >
        >>> >Funny because I'm reading Dan Simmons' Illium (trilogy? I'm on the
        >> second book Olympos), where people wake up - a combination of 21st
        >> century professors and Greek legends like Achilles and Odysseus (at the
        >> time of the Troy war) - believing they're on Earth.  Then they learned
        >> they're actually on Mars.
        >>> >
        >>> >
        >>> >Gravity would be the easy answer.  In the novel, alien technology
        >> artificially increases Mars gravity to a more Earth-like force.
        >>> >
        >>> >
        >>> >Jeff
        >>
        > --
        > -- Scott Bieser
        > Read my web-comic "QUANTUM VIBE" at www.quantumvibe.com
        > <http://www.quantumvibe.com/>
        >
        >


        --
        -- Scott Bieser
        Read my web-comic "QUANTUM VIBE" at www.quantumvibe.com




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

        Yahoo! Groups Links

        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LeftLibertarian2/

        <*> Your email settings:
            Individual Email | Traditional

        <*> To change settings online go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LeftLibertarian2/join
            (Yahoo! ID required)

        <*> To change settings via email:
            LeftLibertarian2-digest@yahoogroups.com
            LeftLibertarian2-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            LeftLibertarian2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.