English Chess Forum

Any one seen one of the rash of recent UFO sightings? Yeah, I know, there are a lot of hoaxes
out there, as well as a lot of gullible naivety, but is this one, for instance, a hoax?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0OzC4J9 ... re=related

People who have seen a UFO often keep quiet about it for fear of public ridicule, an understandable
reaction since it might affect how their competency, or even sanity, is perceived, influencing their
careers and social lives. While it is sensible to remain skeptical of testimony, photographs and film
that are difficult to authenticate, I am now well beyond worrying about those who poo-poo all and
everything that might legitimize the possibility that extra terrestrial intelligence exists with technology
superior to humankind, so I will tell you that I have seen UFOs. Once in SE London around 1979/80,
once in Phoenix in 2002. The UFO in the London sighting had characteristics pretty similar to the
above YouTube video.

I believe in UFOs. I am sure that there are plenty of Unidentified Flying Objects around. However, just because they are unidentified doesn't mean that they must be full of alien life, and i have never found any good evidence to suggest that they are. Therefore, I don't believe that these UFOs are full of aliens.

relevant comic is relevant: All you have to do is believe.

Rob Thompson wrote:I believe in UFOs. I am sure that there are plenty of Unidentified Flying Objects around. However, just because they are unidentified doesn't mean that they must be full of alien life, and i have never found any good evidence to suggest that they are. Therefore, I don't believe that these UFOs are full of aliens.

relevant comic is relevant: All you have to do is believe.

Always good to find an xkcd that I haven't seen before.

And I couldn't agree more with your first paragraph.

Ian Kingston wrote:

Rob Thompson wrote:I believe in UFOs. I am sure that there are plenty of Unidentified Flying Objects around. However, just because they are unidentified doesn't mean that they must be full of alien life, and i have never found any good evidence to suggest that they are. Therefore, I don't believe that these UFOs are full of aliens.

relevant comic is relevant: All you have to do is believe.

Always good to find an xkcd that I haven't seen before.

And I couldn't agree more with your first paragraph.

What? Only two poo-pooers so far! I also couldn't agree more. Simply being "unidentified" doesn't mean anything
necessarily. There must be characteristics, patterns of movement, or something at least that suggests more
beyond an object being propelled by the forces of nature. Like most things in our language the UFO appellation
has outgrown it's initial meaning of being just "unidentified", and is descriptively insufficient for the purposes of
discussing the possibility of extra terrestrial intelligence (ETI), but, if we can, for the purposes of this discussion,
allow UFO in this case, to mean something that suggests intelligent manipulation (by something other than an
earthling hoaxer!) we can continue.

There are a growing number of UFO witnesses going public, many with professional backgrounds who seem to have
nothing to gain from going public apart from setting the record straight. Some notable believers in ETI directed UFOs
are former NASA astronauts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Mitchell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Cooper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_O%27Leary

What? Only two poo-pooers so far!

Three

Nick Thomas wrote:

What? Only two poo-pooers so far!

Three

A good stance to have for your career and social life

Well:

• Edgar Mitchell also believes in remote healing.
• Gordon Cooper's tale is more suited to an episode of The X-Files; his 'proof' mysteriously disappeared. A detailed analysis of his claims is at http://www.zipworld.com.au/~psmith/cooper.html
• Nothing in Brian O'Leary's Wikipedia entry mentions UFOs; he does, however, have sympathy with the idea that the Moon landings were faked.

In other words, no evidence at all, with two supposedly 'credible' witnesses also gullible enough to believe in other nonsense.

Arguments from authority are useless. So are dodgy videos of lights in the sky. After all this time, not one piece of physical evidence has been found. Until first contact is actually made (scheduled, I believe, for Bozeman, Montana, in 2063), sceptical minds will remain unimpressed.

Ian Kingston wrote: ......Nothing in Brian O'Leary's Wikipedia entry mentions UFOs;

You're right, he's more an ETI guy. My mistake in giving a Wikipedia report as reliable. I've seen him on TV talking
about how he believes UFO sightings and contacts have been persistently covered up. He doesn't claim to have
seen a UFO himself, just that he believes others have. For him the UFO thing is only an extension of the more
important issue of ETI. Just an offhand sample:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKLyxTVk ... re=related

the O'Leary bit starts at 1:31:37

Ian Kingston wrote: he does, however, have sympathy with the idea that the Moon landings were faked.

Sympathy? You are overstating your case. A lot depends on how such things are reported and in what context
they're quoted, etc. Here's the entry:
O'Leary once stated that it was "remotely" possible some footage from the Apollo moon missions could have been created in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment on NASA's part. This started a controversy over O' Leary's beliefs whether the moon landings were real or not. In March 2001, O'Leary later appeared briefly in Fox TV's "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon," stating that "I can't say for sure 100%, whether these men walked on the moon. It is possible that NASA could have covered it up, just in order to cut corners, and to be the first to allegedly go to the moon." This has been a question of many hoax advocates for years but O' Leary remains quiet about the Moon program and has "no interest" in rejoining the debate.
O'Leary has a long history of distrusting governments and bureaucrats, a trait of his which continues unabated today,
and even if it is a little bit obsessional, I still like the guy for it. Nowhere does he say that he doesn't actually believe
that his fellow astronauts really landed and walked on the moon; he's just saying that the government is capable of
covering up in the remote possibility that it didn't happen. Note that he doesn't discuss that any more.

Ian Kingston wrote: In other words, no evidence at all, with two supposedly 'credible' witnesses also gullible enough to believe in other nonsense.

Nonsense? You have an absurdly closed mind. Don't you understand that belief and disbelief are
two sides of the same coin? Disbelief is simply another kind of belief. One extreme twists everything to deny
and debunk something, the other extreme uncritically takes something on board as fact. The middle way is
to just to keep an open mind, with degrees of probable belief and disbelief, and rely on your own experience.
Just because you don't experience what others do doesn't mean the experience of others is "nonsense".

Ian Kingston wrote: Arguments from authority are useless. So are dodgy videos of lights in the sky. After all this time, not one piece of physical evidence has been found. Until first contact is actually made (scheduled, I believe, for Bozeman, Montana, in 2063), sceptical minds will
remain unimpressed.

Actually, I agree with you. Only personal experience matters. In the meantime try to keep an open mind.

Nonsense? You have an absurdly closed mind. Don't you understand that belief and disbelief are
two sides of the same coin? Disbelief is simply another kind of belief. One extreme twists everything to deny
and debunk something, the other extreme uncritically takes something on board as fact. The middle way is
to just to keep an open mind, with degrees of probable belief and disbelief, and rely on your own experience.
Just because you don't experience what others do doesn't mean the experience of others is "nonsense".

This sounds like an over reaction to me. Belief and the absence of belief are not really two sides of the same coin in my view. One should begin with an open but skeptical mind and if evidence is lacking then remain skeptical. To believe that something exists should require convincing or even compelling evidence. Non belief in something (e.g. UFO's) does not require convincing or compelling evidence. Words like "nonsense" start to be used when the skeptic believes that the believer is basing their view on faith rather than evidence (or at least convincing evidence) whereas self respecting skeptic "non believers" should always remain open to changing their view (open minded in your words) if convincing evidence comes to light. BTW I think that the "middle way", where one is 50% convinced, describes a stance held by some non believers i.e. 50% convinced means not convinced. I would guess that Ian Kingston is way below 50% convinced though

The man believed in flying, talking tomatoes with tiny elephant riders. This is a nonsense belief but then again I may just be being closed minded.

Nick Thomas wrote:

Nonsense? You have an absurdly closed mind. Don't you understand that belief and disbelief are
two sides of the same coin? Disbelief is simply another kind of belief. One extreme twists everything to deny
and debunk something, the other extreme uncritically takes something on board as fact. The middle way is
to just to keep an open mind, with degrees of probable belief and disbelief, and rely on your own experience.
Just because you don't experience what others do doesn't mean the experience of others is "nonsense".

This sounds like an over reaction to me. Belief and the absence of belief are not really two sides of the same coin in my view. One should begin with an open but skeptical mind and if evidence is lacking then remain skeptical. To believe that something exists should require convincing or even compelling evidence. Non belief in something (e.g. UFO's) does not require convincing or compelling evidence. Words like "nonsense" start to be used when the skeptic believes that the believer is basing their view on faith rather than evidence (or at least convincing evidence) whereas self respecting skeptic "non believers" should always remain open to changing their view (open minded in your words) if convincing evidence comes to light. BTW I think that the "middle way", where one is 50% convinced, describes a stance held by some non believers i.e. 50% convinced means not convinced. I would guess that Ian Kingston is way below 50% convinced though

The man believed in flying, talking tomatoes with tiny elephant riders. This is a nonsense belief but then again I may just be being closed minded.

You are entitled to your POV

As somebody (I've forgotten quite who) once said - "everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts"

Matt Mackenzie wrote:As somebody (I've forgotten quite who) once said - "everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts"

I was just trying to be polite

It's a common criticism of sceptics that they have closed minds. Someone who dismisses claims without examining them probably falls into that category. The flip side of that is gullibility. Sceptics are in neither group.

I'll happily dismiss remote healing and Moon landing hoax theories as nonsense. They lack any basis in reality. UFOs are more interesting because in most cases there is a real phenomenon to be explained - a light or object in the sky that cannot be immediately identified. Something like 10% of such cases are left unexplained after investigation. Anyone with the time, energy and skill can continue to investigate if they wish, but most of us have to get on with more important things.

It is not, however, reasonable to ascribe those unexplained cases to one's favoured explanation by default. This is what the UFO believers tend to do. In fact, they often argue against some of the explanations established for other cases, even when there is no good reason to do so. They have made up their minds that 'strange lights in the sky' equals 'alien spaceships', and they cannot be shifted from that view. They have closed minds.

And what of the sceptics? Ninety per cent of UFOs are actually identified as not being alien spaceships, while the other 10% offer no evidence for extraterrestrial visitors precisely because all we can say about them is that we don't know what they are. So the sceptical position is that we are not being visited by ET, but that any future evidence will be examined with interest - and an open mind.

Anyone who still wishes to claim that I have an 'absurdly closed mind' should reflect on the above.

George Szaszvari wrote:Any one seen one of the rash of recent UFO sightings? Yeah, I know, there are a lot of hoaxes
out there, as well as a lot of gullible naivety, but is this one, for instance, a hoax?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0OzC4J9 ... re=related

People who have seen a UFO often keep quiet about it for fear of public ridicule, an understandable
reaction since it might affect how their competency, or even sanity, is perceived, influencing their
careers and social lives. While it is sensible to remain skeptical of testimony, photographs and film
that are difficult to authenticate, I am now well beyond worrying about those who poo-poo all and
everything that might legitimize the possibility that extra terrestrial intelligence exists with technology
superior to humankind, so I will tell you that I have seen UFOs. Once in SE London around 1979/80,
once in Phoenix in 2002. The UFO in the London sighting had characteristics pretty similar to the
above YouTube video.

I'm surprised nobody in this thread yet quoted the worldwide leader of our sport organization, see for instance:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser ... igate.html

Now, connecting with another popular thread on this forum, does that mean everyone on the FIDE grading list (ENG or any other national affiliation) MUST comply with the president position and admit the existence of UFOs, otherwise they will be excluded from the rating list?

Paolo Casaschi wrote: I'm surprised nobody in this thread yet quoted the worldwide leader of our sport organization, see for instance:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser ... igate.html

Now, connecting with another popular thread on this forum, does that mean everyone on the FIDE grading list (ENG or any other national affiliation) MUST comply with the president position and admit the existence of UFOs, otherwise they will be excluded from the rating list?

Uh oh, this is so embarrassing...