Obama on UFOs: "We don't know exactly what they are"

[Elmer]

And presenting convincingly-explained bits of video as profoundly mysterious. This is nothing more than mystery-mongering clickbait.

[bash]

Attacking sources instead of arguments is a rhetorical fallacy + injecting mild derision demonstrate an emotional bias.

[bash]

Add that to one of the possibilities then.

[Brainspore]

@bash

Attacking sources instead of arguments is a rhetorical fallacy

Not when the argument is based on information from questionable sources.

For example, you just presented this statement as if it were objective fact rather than wishful thinking.

Even if we leave a margin of possible error for each of the 6 eliminated classifications; the remaining “alien” explanation becomes far more probable than any other prosaic explanation.

[Elmer]

@bash

And then a defense intelligence officer says, that after rigorous investigation and review of instrument readings and corroborative testimonies, the UFO remains classified as ‘unknown’. Not because of lack of intelligence, but because the available intelligence could refute, to his and his department’s assessment, 6 of the 7 possibilities.

Even if we leave a margin of possible error for each of the 6 eliminated classifications; the remaining “alien” explanation becomes far more probable than any other prosaic explanation.

Nope. Your conclusion doesn’t follow. You’re simply asserting that uncertainty in the assessment won’t make a difference. You don’t get to do that. Such an assertion must have support, if it bears on your conclusion.

[Elmer]

@bash

Also on CNN :

CNN

Retired US Navy Chief explains tech witnessed in UFO aircraft sighting - CNN…

CNN’s Chris Cuomo talks to Sean Cahil, retired US Navy Chief Master-at-Arms, and Christopher Mellon, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, about the forthcoming government report on UFO sightings.

The thumbnail shows a commercial airliner (likely a 737 based on the pattern of the flashing lights) whose apparent triangular shape is the result of bokeh from the aperture of the night-vision scope the video was taken through. To anyone who has used any kind of optical system, this is immediately apparent. All the other videos in these breathless reports have similarly mundane explanations, and the “eyewitness” accounts are this point worse than useless, due to 17 years of opportunity for confabulation and embellishment.

This story is a big nothingburger. Be prepared to be very disappointed in June.

ETA: Just watched this CNN clip. Its “expert” actually claims that these events can’t possibly be the result of human technology.

CNN should be ashamed. But anything for the clicks, huh?

[FGD135]

[Brainspore]

@Elmer

The thumbnail shows a commercial airliner (likely a 737 based on the pattern of the flashing lights) whose apparent triangular shape is the result of bokeh from the aperture of the night-vision scope the video was taken through.

One of the strongest arguments for refuting fuzzy photographic “evidence“ of UFOs is that the photos have not been increasing in quality or detail as our society has been amassing ever more and higher-quality cameras.

No matter how many still images or how much video footage we collect of UFOs it always seems that the alien spaceships only appear just beyond what current camera technology and resolution can clearly make out.

[Elmer]

It’s a CRAZY coincidence that objects become harder and harder to identify as they move closer and closer to the limits of perceptibility, isn’t it?

[chenille]

[Brainspore]

I suppose the alternate explanation is that ghosts, UFOs, and Bigfoot have just been steadily moving farther and farther away from anyone holding a camera.

[bash]

@Brainspore

For example, you just presented this statement as if it were objective fact rather than wishful thinking.

Even if we leave a margin of possible error for each of the 6 eliminated classifications; the remaining “alien” explanation becomes far more probable

I just explained the process of elimination, not much else. Don’t see how that process wouldn’t be factual.

[bash]

@Elmer

ETA: Just watched this CNN clip. Its “expert” actually claims that these events can’t possibly be the result of human technology.

CNN should be ashamed. But anything for the clicks, huh?

So essentially defense intelligence officers are obviously confused, they are not expert, all that because your own personal assessment tells you otherwise.

[Brainspore]

It’s only a “process of elimination” if you’re actually eliminating possibilities. Your words were

@bash

Even if we leave a margin of possible error for each of the 6 eliminated classifications

That’s not “eliminating possibilities,” it’s assigning probabilities. Moreover, you’re assuming probabilities that we have no data to support (i.e. alien visitations).

[Brainspore]

@bash

So essentially defense intelligence officers are obviously confused

Frequently, yes.

[bash]

No case of unknown humanoid creature or unknown sea monster have been corroborated by multiple Navy officers and detected by various instruments, and declared a legitimate mystery by the Pentagon.

People try to bring ridicule to the subject by mixing it with Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster but it’s only rhetorical obfuscation.

[bash]

@Brainspore

@bash

So essentially defense intelligence officers are obviously confused

Frequently, yes.

And therefore, their evidence should be ignored by congress.

[chenille]

Hey, I believe in flying objects that nobody has identified. You’re the one making it ridiculous by mixing them up with flying saucers and aliens and abusing Bayesian probabilities.

[Brainspore]

@bash

And therefore, their evidence should be ignored by congress.

No. Their theories should be weighed against less exotic explanations, including explanations offered by experts who do not share the “it was aliens!” theory.

[bash]

@Brainspore

It’s only a “process of elimination” if you’re actually eliminating possibilities. Your words were

@bash

Even if we leave a margin of possible error for each of the 6 eliminated classifications

That’s not “eliminating possibilities,” it’s assigning probabilities. Moreover, you’re assuming probabilities that we have no data to support (i.e. alien visitations)

I offered a possible margin of error on the elimination of a possibility. You can put a margin of 0% if you want a true elimination.

We don’t know the probability of alien visitation that’s true. That why we try to list alternate possibilities and eliminate them based on validating or contradicting observations.