4 ms·

If you're a scientifically minded skeptic, I'd encourage you to read this book on the UFO phenomenon: http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Generals-Pilots-Government-Off

by gfodor 14y ago

If you're a scientifically minded skeptic, I'd encourage you to read this book on the UFO phenomenon: http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Generals-Pilots-Government-Officials/dp/0307717089/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342503506&sr=8-1&keywords=leslie+kean+ufo+book http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Generals-Pilots-Government-Offici... It's a very good read. Also, in all UFO threads there should be a disclaimer that you are not making a point by pointing out that UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object not Alien Spaceship; most people when referring to the truly unexplainable cases use them interchangeably since extraterrestrial origin is one of the few hypotheses that are consistent with the evidence, though it's never obviously conclusive.

mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
Another well researched book is: http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-National-Security-State-Chronology/dp/1571743170/ref=pd_sim_b_2 http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-National-Security-State-Chronolog... It covers the intersection of military/governmental organizations and the phenomenon, mostly in the latter half of the 20th century. The short version would be to search YouTube for Richard Dolan. He's a great speaker and presents the information in a way that should be palatable for even the hardest skeptic.
- quesst 14y ago
  Yes, I have read that book and several others on the subject and have been blown away. As both an open-minded and scientifically minded skeptic, it would be intellectually dishonest - even foolish - to deny that something extraordinary is going on that is worthy of investigation by science. While most cases can be explained away, about 5% of the cases deserve further study. For example, there are well documented cases of objects spotted moving at speeds of 20 or 30,000 miles per hour and making right angle turns and other impossible maneuvers, backed by both air and ground radar readings, and dozens of eyewitnesses. Or of massive objects the size of a football field gliding at low speeds, with no sound at all, over an entire city, and observed by hundreds of people. Something strange is going on in our skies, and sadly mainstream science and media are dismissing it, even ridiculing it.
  - VMG 14y ago
    Can you point to the documentation of these events?
    - quesst 14y ago
      Read any of the books above or watch this Yotube documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk where hundreds of high ranking officials in Govt, military, aviation etc. are willing to go on the record and testify under oath, of some of these events.
      - VMG 14y ago
        That is not documentation. That is eye-witness testimony. Edit: I won't sit through 2hrs of slow-talking elderly men reminiscing about that time they see some unexplained lights in the sky. It is difficult to take proponents of the ET-hypothesis serious if they always point to such bad evidence.
- VMG 14y ago
  How would you summarize the argument for UFOs being non-terrestrial for a skeptic who doesn't want to buy and read this book?
mkaltenecker 14y ago
You mean, extraterrestrial origin is by far the most absurd explanation and shouldn't even be accepted as a hypothesis, right?
- gfodor 14y ago
  Absurdity of it is subjective, but it being consistent with the evidence is not. It's highly unlikely, but it's certainly more likely than explanations that have zero likelihood. In the past the government has put forth explanations of events that are patently false (read: lied) and never re-examined, so the extraterrestrial hypothesis is more likely than their explanations in those cases. Edit: To be honest, I'm surprised the extraterrestrial hypothesis is considered so absurd by scientifically minded people. Clearly it's absurd to assume that we're the only 'advanced' civilization in the universe, the place where it's a grey area is if a much more advanced civilization would have the means or the interest to visit our planet, and if they did, if the phenomenon of UFOs jives with what we'd expect to see if they did. This is up for debate, obviously, but I am not sure why logic doesn't dictate that the odds are reasonable that such a scenario could exist. Fermi's paradox makes you wonder.
  - mkaltenecker 14y ago
    Oy, since when are conspiracy nuts hanging out on HN? You should see a psychologist.
    - inoop 14y ago
      Since HN turned into Reddit :)
    - gfodor 14y ago
      Since when are ad-hom's acceptable responses on HN? I never said I was sure such things were true, but like most true hackers, I'm curious and want to know more when things seem like they don't make sense. You're not very well read if you think UFOs are an open and shut case for all people who don't "need to see a psychologist."
    - 14y ago
ladzoppelin 14y ago
Wow to accept that anytime someone says UFO they actually mean alien spacecraft is ridiculous. Do you think that military testing, misinformation, hallucinations, psychological projections and t.v entertainment do not exist?
- gfodor 14y ago
  No, you misunderstand my point. My point is simply that in modern day slang and often in discussion forums (outside of military/aviation documents) UFO means "I think I saw an alien spaceship or something equally unexplainable, here's why there isn't a good explanation." In UFO related threads someone will inevitably post a non-reply that is 'argument by acronym' where a person makes a claim as to why they think the UFO they saw is unexplainable (however unlikely that may be) and the 'counter-argument' is a reading of the definition of UFO. This proves nothing and reveals just how much the replying person looks down upon the person making the claim, as if they were too stupid to understand the definition and history of the acronym and as if knowing that changes what they saw.
  - dinkumthinkum 14y ago
    I will say that I agree that it gets cumbersome when people make the old joke "I saw a UFO. I mean I saw an Unidentified Flying Object because I say an Object that was Flying that I could identify." Probably for a younger crowd that sort of response is appropriate because maybe they are unfamiliar with this. But if you are old hat to this UFO poppycock business, it's more interesting to get down to the meat and potatoes of how ridiculous the ET visitation stuff is and bypass the acronym discussion. :)

by gfodor 14y ago

mbenjaminsmith 14y ago

Another well researched book is: http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-National-Security-State-Chronology/dp/1571743170/ref=pd_sim_b_2 http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-National-Security-State-Chronolog... It covers the intersection of military/governmental organizations and the phenomenon, mostly in the latter half of the 20th century. The short version would be to search YouTube for Richard Dolan. He's a great speaker and presents the information in a way that should be palatable for even the hardest skeptic.

quesst 14y ago
Yes, I have read that book and several others on the subject and have been blown away. As both an open-minded and scientifically minded skeptic, it would be intellectually dishonest - even foolish - to deny that something extraordinary is going on that is worthy of investigation by science. While most cases can be explained away, about 5% of the cases deserve further study. For example, there are well documented cases of objects spotted moving at speeds of 20 or 30,000 miles per hour and making right angle turns and other impossible maneuvers, backed by both air and ground radar readings, and dozens of eyewitnesses. Or of massive objects the size of a football field gliding at low speeds, with no sound at all, over an entire city, and observed by hundreds of people. Something strange is going on in our skies, and sadly mainstream science and media are dismissing it, even ridiculing it.
- VMG 14y ago
  Can you point to the documentation of these events?
  - quesst 14y ago
    Read any of the books above or watch this Yotube documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk where hundreds of high ranking officials in Govt, military, aviation etc. are willing to go on the record and testify under oath, of some of these events.
    - VMG 14y ago
      That is not documentation. That is eye-witness testimony. Edit: I won't sit through 2hrs of slow-talking elderly men reminiscing about that time they see some unexplained lights in the sky. It is difficult to take proponents of the ET-hypothesis serious if they always point to such bad evidence.
VMG 14y ago
How would you summarize the argument for UFOs being non-terrestrial for a skeptic who doesn't want to buy and read this book?

mkaltenecker 14y ago

You mean, extraterrestrial origin is by far the most absurd explanation and shouldn't even be accepted as a hypothesis, right?

gfodor 14y ago
Absurdity of it is subjective, but it being consistent with the evidence is not. It's highly unlikely, but it's certainly more likely than explanations that have zero likelihood. In the past the government has put forth explanations of events that are patently false (read: lied) and never re-examined, so the extraterrestrial hypothesis is more likely than their explanations in those cases. Edit: To be honest, I'm surprised the extraterrestrial hypothesis is considered so absurd by scientifically minded people. Clearly it's absurd to assume that we're the only 'advanced' civilization in the universe, the place where it's a grey area is if a much more advanced civilization would have the means or the interest to visit our planet, and if they did, if the phenomenon of UFOs jives with what we'd expect to see if they did. This is up for debate, obviously, but I am not sure why logic doesn't dictate that the odds are reasonable that such a scenario could exist. Fermi's paradox makes you wonder.
- mkaltenecker 14y ago
  Oy, since when are conspiracy nuts hanging out on HN? You should see a psychologist.
  - inoop 14y ago
    Since HN turned into Reddit :)
  - gfodor 14y ago
    Since when are ad-hom's acceptable responses on HN? I never said I was sure such things were true, but like most true hackers, I'm curious and want to know more when things seem like they don't make sense. You're not very well read if you think UFOs are an open and shut case for all people who don't "need to see a psychologist."
  - 14y ago

ladzoppelin 14y ago

Wow to accept that anytime someone says UFO they actually mean alien spacecraft is ridiculous. Do you think that military testing, misinformation, hallucinations, psychological projections and t.v entertainment do not exist?

gfodor 14y ago
No, you misunderstand my point. My point is simply that in modern day slang and often in discussion forums (outside of military/aviation documents) UFO means "I think I saw an alien spaceship or something equally unexplainable, here's why there isn't a good explanation." In UFO related threads someone will inevitably post a non-reply that is 'argument by acronym' where a person makes a claim as to why they think the UFO they saw is unexplainable (however unlikely that may be) and the 'counter-argument' is a reading of the definition of UFO. This proves nothing and reveals just how much the replying person looks down upon the person making the claim, as if they were too stupid to understand the definition and history of the acronym and as if knowing that changes what they saw.
- dinkumthinkum 14y ago
  I will say that I agree that it gets cumbersome when people make the old joke "I saw a UFO. I mean I saw an Unidentified Flying Object because I say an Object that was Flying that I could identify." Probably for a younger crowd that sort of response is appropriate because maybe they are unfamiliar with this. But if you are old hat to this UFO poppycock business, it's more interesting to get down to the meat and potatoes of how ridiculous the ET visitation stuff is and bypass the acronym discussion. :)