That Damn UFO Thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-11-2014, 09:48 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
I just read the Chicago Tribune article by Hilkevich http://web.archive.org/web/2007111707341...ldiraq-hed and while it certainly sounds unusual this stood out for me “No controllers saw the object, and a preliminary check of radar found nothing out of the ordinary, FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory said.”

So what did those people see? We’ll never know.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
28-11-2014, 09:55 AM (This post was last modified: 28-11-2014 10:13 AM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 09:48 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  I just read the Chicago Tribune article by Hilkevich http://web.archive.org/web/2007111707341...ldiraq-hed and while it certainly sounds unusual this stood out for me “No controllers saw the object, and a preliminary check of radar found nothing out of the ordinary, FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory said.”

So what did those people see? We’ll never know.

Actually, the recording from the ground controller said the following:

"The FAA’s ground controller notified incoming Flight 5668 to “use caution for the, ahhh, UFO”.

This is actually on tape. They knew it was there.

The following website gives a "play-by-play" of the event, including witness reports.

O'Hare UFO Report

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
28-11-2014, 10:41 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 09:09 AM)Free Wrote:  But nonetheless, since we do not have a singularity, nor can we actually see space expanding, then conclusive evidence is still not present. Scientists are "observing" evidence, which is no different than the 12 witnesses who observed the craft. Both observe and make an evaluation based upon what they observed.

But both can still rightfully be assessed as making an extraordinary claim.

Nope, those are not even close to the same. Scientists are observing and recording data that can be objectively evaluated by anyone. This is vastly different than the testimony of a few people of a confusing, ephemeral event.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 10:43 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 09:35 AM)Free Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 05:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  Except that there is no evidence that what they saw was an aircraft. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Okay, so I guess if you were a judge in a criminal trial case and 12 witnesses confirmed what the criminal did, you would dismiss their testimonies because they provided no evidence, right?

Here's a scenario:

There are 14 people in a room, 7 men, and 7 women. One of the men was heard to be sexually harassing one of the women. Everybody heard it.

The case goes to trial. We have one defendant, one victim, and 12 witnesses.

All 12 witnesses testify what they heard, and all twelve agree that the defendant sexually harassed the victim. There is no other evidence except the testimony of the 12 witnesses.

Will the judge convict based ONLY on eyewitness testimony?

We both know the answer don't we. Why will he convict on eyewitness testimony alone?

Okay?

Got ya. Wink

Your desperation is evident. Those witnesses are not making an extraordinary claim. Or can't you tell the difference?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 10:45 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 10:43 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 09:35 AM)Free Wrote:  Okay, so I guess if you were a judge in a criminal trial case and 12 witnesses confirmed what the criminal did, you would dismiss their testimonies because they provided no evidence, right?

Here's a scenario:

There are 14 people in a room, 7 men, and 7 women. One of the men was heard to be sexually harassing one of the women. Everybody heard it.

The case goes to trial. We have one defendant, one victim, and 12 witnesses.

All 12 witnesses testify what they heard, and all twelve agree that the defendant sexually harassed the victim. There is no other evidence except the testimony of the 12 witnesses.

Will the judge convict based ONLY on eyewitness testimony?

We both know the answer don't we. Why will he convict on eyewitness testimony alone?

Okay?

Got ya. Wink

Your desperation is evident. Those witnesses are not making an extraordinary claim. Or can't you tell the difference?

It doesn't matter who thinks if the claim is extraordinary or not, but my point is absolutely valid.

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
28-11-2014, 10:48 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 09:09 AM)Free Wrote:  But nonetheless, since we do not have a singularity, nor can we actually see space expanding, then conclusive evidence is still not present. Scientists are "observing" evidence, which is no different than the 12 witnesses who observed the craft. Both observe and make an evaluation based upon what they observed.

But both can still rightfully be assessed as making an extraordinary claim.

Nope, those are not even close to the same. Scientists are observing and recording data that can be objectively evaluated by anyone. This is vastly different than the testimony of a few people of a confusing, ephemeral event.

Since both have no empirical evidence, then neither is conclusive. Both are plausible.

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
28-11-2014, 10:49 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 10:45 AM)Free Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 10:43 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your desperation is evident. Those witnesses are not making an extraordinary claim. Or can't you tell the difference?

It doesn't matter who thinks if the claim is extraordinary or not, but my point is absolutely valid.

No, it's not. It's a bad analogy.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 10:53 AM (This post was last modified: 28-11-2014 11:11 AM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 10:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 10:45 AM)Free Wrote:  It doesn't matter who thinks if the claim is extraordinary or not, but my point is absolutely valid.

No, it's not. It's a bad analogy.

The analogy was virtually identical, referencing eyewitness reports. Regardless if it is deemed extraordinary or not, the point is clear that a judge does indeed consider eyewitness reports as evidence.

That was the entire point of the analogy.

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
28-11-2014, 11:12 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 10:53 AM)Free Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 10:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, it's not. It's a bad analogy.

The analogy was virtually identical, referencing eyewitness reports. Regardless if it is deemed extraordinary or not, the point is clear that a judge does indeed consider eyewitness reports as evidence.

Again, no. The type of claim being made changes the level of evidence required.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 11:13 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 10:48 AM)Free Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  Nope, those are not even close to the same. Scientists are observing and recording data that can be objectively evaluated by anyone. This is vastly different than the testimony of a few people of a confusing, ephemeral event.

Since both have no empirical evidence, then neither is conclusive. Both are plausible.

You do not understand the meaning of empirical evidence. Look it up.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: