That Damn UFO Thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-11-2014, 02:08 PM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2014 02:16 PM by cjlr.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(27-11-2014 01:36 PM)Free Wrote:  
(27-11-2014 01:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And yet somehow no photograph or any other recordings were made in some of the busiest airspace on the planet. Hmm.

Many crimes are committed without photographs or recordings, yet those criminals are convicted upon eyewitness accounts.

So what?

"There once was a reliable eyewitness, therefore all eyewitnesses are reliable"? Yeah, no. Not so much.

Eyewitness testimony is the worst form of evidence. Period.
(not that trial by jury is anything close to an empirical process...)

Have you heard the saying, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?

(27-11-2014 01:36 PM)Free Wrote:  This demonstrates that the lack of photos or recordings proves nothing.

No, it demonstrates that you're trying really hard to make excuses for the paucity of evidence and your credulity despite it.

One would predict that the massive proliferation of recording devices - most people on Earth have a (video) camera on their person today - would correlate with a matching increase in, ah, "evidence". Has it?

(27-11-2014 01:36 PM)Free Wrote:  Besides, if a recording or video appeared on YouTube the "It's FAKE" banters would be all over the place, regardless if it was real or not.

Oh?

Is there a good recording out there that isn't fake and isn't explicable? Do let me know!

(27-11-2014 01:36 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:And yet somehow the "similar vantage points" only included people in one single precise location out of many thousands in the airport, and the purported "object" was not visible from even a hundred metres in either direction. Hmm.

They were not in any single precise location at all. There were pilots in cockpits, managers inside buildings, workers taxiing planes, and others in various locations.

All those workers had a clear advantage to witness the object since the object was outside and most of the workers were outside.

Every supposed "eyewitness" was in the same immediate vicinity, according to the reports I checked. They were the ground and air crew working on a single plane on the tarmac.

A giant object in the sky would be visible for kilometres around; as, indeed, human aircraft very demonstrably are. Busy airspace is intensively radar monitered to boot. Especially at low altitude. So why only a handful of witnesses? Why no recordings? This is a lack of evidence which should be in existence, if your interpretation of events is correct.

(27-11-2014 01:36 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Even if we say there was an actual physical object and not merely a visual artifact or atmospheric phenomenon... why the hell would we then conclude "aliens"?

We don't need to conclude it was aliens, but only posit the best plausible explanation. It proves nothing EXCEPT what the most plausible explanation is according to the evidence.

Arguments such as this are based upon persuasion, not conclusiveness. If you are looking for conclusiveness, you are in the wrong argument.

I'm still struggling to see anything persuasive. How does one make the staggering leap of faith from "unidentified" to "aliens"?
(and no, disingenuously insisting "probably aliens" is meaningfully distinct a claim from "definitely aliens" is not helpful)

But sure, knock yourself out. You can go on claiming "maybe aliens" until you're blue in the face. Making the claim is all well and good. There remains no reason to seriously entertain it.

I mean, I can claim they saw an angel returning to heaven. Prove me wrong; it's okay, I'll wait.

(27-11-2014 01:36 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:At best what you seem to be doing, Free, is using a bunch of unknowns to draw spurious conclusions to support each other. That's fallacious.

And what you are doing is aiming for conclusiveness in a persuasive argument when no such conclusiveness is available.

And that is futile.

It troubles me that you still don't quite get how the burden of proof works here.

You are making the claim. You can dress it up as a "probability" all you like; you are making the claim ("unknown, therefore ALIENS are the best explanation"). Just like the last round of this tedious dance, that you are capable of putting forth an explanation in no way compels anyone else to lend it any credence.

I am not saying your pet explanation is impossible. I am saying that there is no compelling evidence. I categorically deny that there is anything remotely convincing in your claim.

Call that an unreasonable standard of evidence if you will; I would then remind you that the very same accusation will be levelled at you by the believers in everything you reject - ghosts, angels and miracles, cryptozoologia, spirit science, psychics, you name it.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
27-11-2014, 02:27 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(27-11-2014 02:06 PM)Free Wrote:  
(27-11-2014 02:05 PM)Vosur Wrote:  

Sure.

Now make it fit the eyewitness accounts, and provide other evidence to support those theories.

Tongue

Wait, exactly how is the "aliens" explanation more evidence-based than the possible explanations I provided?

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like undergroundp's post
27-11-2014, 02:46 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(27-11-2014 01:56 PM)Free Wrote:  I am absolutely willing to change my position on all this if a better argument can be posited.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. You want an answer and are willing to accept what you consider to be the best answer out of all the possibilities you can think of. It doesn't even seem to matter what the actual probability is, only that it is higher than you assign to any other option.

I want an answer but I am willing to stop at "I don't know" and not feel that I have to pick ANY answer unless I find the evidence very compelling and significantly more probable than any other.

In the specific case of UFOs I would rate experimental aircraft, mistaken identification, and delusion all higher than alien vehicles. In the specific cases you've mentioned I don't see any of those really outweighing the others so I leave it as a mystery until more evidence is available.

Quote:So it's like this:
Judge: Who saw a UFO?
12 Witness: We did, your honor.

No, it isn't like that. Testifying about mundane things that you saw is not the same as testifying to something you saw that is beyond your experience. When a witness testifies that they saw a man enter a building the amount of proof I'd need to accept that is far lower then when they tell me they saw an alien spacecraft zoom into the stratosphere.

Let me try asking this a different way... out of all the reported UFO sightings what percentage would you estimate to fall into each of the following categories:
a) natural phenomena (swamp gas, venus, mirage, etc)
b) common man-made object (airplane, weather balloon, toy, etc)
c) secret or experimental aircraft (military or private sector)
d) insufficient/conflicting information
e) hoaxes
f) alien spacecraft
g) time travelers
h) supernatural (ghosts, gods, parallel dimension leakage, etc)

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
27-11-2014, 03:11 PM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2014 03:14 PM by Gaest.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
I consider a good bit of this a cultural thing.
You grow up in a culture getting its particular cultural slant on the filter you use to locate, emphasize and interpret things and events around you.

Many Americans seem to have some kind of intellectual fetish for UFOs (read extraterrestrials), and that makes them more likely to interpret events into that scheme, and sometimes outright see stuff which isn't actually there.

I have always found it interesting when people ridicule "evidence" for creationism and the like, while at the same time accepting "evidence" for sketchy conspiracy theories...

(Not saying I'm scot-free in the "biased towards standard of evidence" department BTW)

Edit: Also, not saying this is only an American thing, but I do think it is quite abundant in the States compared to the rest of the world.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2014, 05:38 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(27-11-2014 02:27 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  
(27-11-2014 02:06 PM)Free Wrote:  Sure.

Now make it fit the eyewitness accounts, and provide other evidence to support those theories.

Tongue

Wait, exactly how is the "aliens" explanation more evidence-based than the possible explanations I provided?

Because that is the presupposition he started with. Really without that any explanation is more feasible save for a supernatural one. Aliens are slightly more feasible than angels and infinitely less likely than a black ops experimental plane (thus why a significant portion of UFO sightings happen in the airspace of area 51 a know Air force testing base). Everything else in this thread is an argument from ignorance and a shrugging of the burden of proof. "You can't prove it's not" is the best defense he has thus far provided and it is laughable short of convincing anyone not already wishing to believe.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
27-11-2014, 05:54 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
I'm disappointed in you guys I really am. 10 pages in and no one else has noticed that despite how aggressively he claims to believe in the subject he still knew well enough to post it in the pseudoscience section. Laugh out load

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
27-11-2014, 05:57 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(27-11-2014 02:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-11-2014 01:36 PM)Free Wrote:  Many crimes are committed without photographs or recordings, yet those criminals are convicted upon eyewitness accounts.

So what?

"There once was a reliable eyewitness, therefore all eyewitnesses are reliable"? Yeah, no. Not so much.

No comparison whatsoever.

There's a big difference when you have 12 eyewitness all describing the same thing. The credibility factor is increased exponentially.

Quote:Eyewitness testimony is the worst form of evidence. Period.

Again, there's a big difference when you have 12 eyewitness all describing the same thing. The credibility factor is increased exponentially.

Quote:Have you heard the saying, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?

Of course!

So let me demonstrate something to you.

According to your posts on other threads, you appear to have accepted that the Big Bang is likely the most plausible explanation for the existence of the universe.

Yet ... can you show me the singularity?
Can you actually show me that space is expanding?

No, but you hypothesize it based upon the available evidence, correct?

So, since we have no singularity to draw a reference from, and no direct evidence that space is expanding, then what you believe to be plausible is, in every way, an extraordinary claim.

Yet you have no problems accepting as plausible the extraordinary claim of a singularity and space expansion, but when someone else makes what you deem to be an extraordinary claim ... well wow ... the empirical card must be played.

In this case there is no empirical evidence to be considered, but just like the singularity and space expansion we can draw information from the evidence that is available and posit a theory that is consistent with that evidence.

Could we be wrong? Absolutely! But then again, so could everything you know about the Big Bang also be wrong.

But, it's the best that can be done with the available evidence.

Thumbsup

Quote:
(27-11-2014 01:36 PM)Free Wrote:  This demonstrates that the lack of photos or recordings proves nothing.

No, it demonstrates that you're trying really hard to make excuses for the paucity of evidence and your credulity despite it.

You continually try to make this about me personally instead of proposing an alternate credible explanation based upon the available evidence. So here, I will post the exact same problem I posted to unfogged and let's see how you do:

Okay, so let's apply some reasoning here.

They all claim that they seen a large disc hovering in the sky some 1600 feet up, that had lights, a distinct shape, and which they watched go straight up, blowing a hole in the clouds.

12 witnesses- highly experienced with aircraft- claim to have seen a metallic disc shaped object- an aircraft- with lights performing maneuvers in the sky.

If it was not a vehicle, then I should expect you to come up with another explanation for what they seen, and your explanation must meet the following descriptions:

According to all 12 witnesses:

1. It had a metallic disc shaped appearance.
2. It had flashing lights.
3. It was hovering approximately 1600 feet above the ground.
4. It quickly moved straight up, pushing the clouds aside into a perfect circle, and then disappeared in the upper atmosphere.


So, aside from it being a vehicle, please demonstrate to me what else it could be, and do so by including the 4 items in the description above. Also, provide good solid reasoning as to how these 12 witnesses could possibly identify the object as something other than a vehicle.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2014, 06:42 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(27-11-2014 05:38 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(27-11-2014 02:27 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  Wait, exactly how is the "aliens" explanation more evidence-based than the possible explanations I provided?

Because that is the presupposition he started with. Really without that any explanation is more feasible save for a supernatural one. Aliens are slightly more feasible than angels and infinitely less likely than a black ops experimental plane (thus why a significant portion of UFO sightings happen in the airspace of area 51 a know Air force testing base). Everything else in this thread is an argument from ignorance and a shrugging of the burden of proof. "You can't prove it's not" is the best defense he has thus far provided and it is laughable short of convincing anyone not already wishing to believe.

Actually, no.

What I am asking for is an alternate plausible explanation that fits the available evidence.

This is a "persuasive" argument based upon the available evidence. Nothing here is conclusive. All I am asking for is exactly what I said; an alternate plausible explanation that fits the available evidence.

And recall what I said in an earlier post; this particular incident hits a 7 out of 10 on my credibility scale. That definitely demonstrates plenty of room for doubt on my part.

So ... better explanation?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2014, 06:50 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(27-11-2014 02:46 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Let me try asking this a different way... out of all the reported UFO sightings what percentage would you estimate to fall into each of the following categories:
a) natural phenomena (swamp gas, venus, mirage, etc)
b) common man-made object (airplane, weather balloon, toy, etc)
c) secret or experimental aircraft (military or private sector)
d) insufficient/conflicting information
e) hoaxes
f) alien spacecraft
g) time travelers
h) supernatural (ghosts, gods, parallel dimension leakage, etc)

a) 20%
b) 30%
c) 10%
d) 14.99 %
e) 25%
f) 0.01%
g) 0%
h) 0%

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2014, 07:59 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(27-11-2014 06:42 PM)Free Wrote:  
(27-11-2014 05:38 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Because that is the presupposition he started with. Really without that any explanation is more feasible save for a supernatural one. Aliens are slightly more feasible than angels and infinitely less likely than a black ops experimental plane (thus why a significant portion of UFO sightings happen in the airspace of area 51 a know Air force testing base). Everything else in this thread is an argument from ignorance and a shrugging of the burden of proof. "You can't prove it's not" is the best defense he has thus far provided and it is laughable short of convincing anyone not already wishing to believe.

Actually, no.

What I am asking for is an alternate plausible explanation that fits the available evidence.

This is a "persuasive" argument based upon the available evidence. Nothing here is conclusive. All I am asking for is exactly what I said; an alternate plausible explanation that fits the available evidence.

And recall what I said in an earlier post; this particular incident hits a 7 out of 10 on my credibility scale. That definitely demonstrates plenty of room for doubt on my part.

So ... better explanation?

Than alien craft? Literally anything short of the supernatural. Group hallucination, classified aircraft, swamp gas, mistaken identification of ordinary aircraft, take your pick all are far more likely than Aliens.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: