That Damn UFO Thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-11-2014, 05:52 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 05:45 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Read it.

Found the following images on the web for comparison and I remain skeptical of anything extra-terrestrial having caused the unexplained event.


[Image: breaking-speed-of-sound.jpg]

[Image: 2c3a47e300a84867cc2f70b74c2ae06b.jpg]

[Image: -skypunch-.-ice-crystals-form-above-the-...r._595.jpg]

[Image: 126718_nasa_releases_spectacul.jpg]

Nothing wrong with skepticism.

These images, however. 1st one looks like an artist sketch, 2nd one makes me wonder who would dare fly in the path of a jet to take a pic, or dare to open some kind of back door to take the pic.

The 3rd and 4th seem okay, but like all pics on the web, are they real or photoshopped?

That's why I prefer historical pics and videos other than modern ones.

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, 05:55 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 05:52 PM)Free Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 05:45 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Read it.

Found the following images on the web for comparison and I remain skeptical of anything extra-terrestrial having caused the unexplained event.


[Image: breaking-speed-of-sound.jpg]

[Image: 2c3a47e300a84867cc2f70b74c2ae06b.jpg]

[Image: -skypunch-.-ice-crystals-form-above-the-...r._595.jpg]

[Image: 126718_nasa_releases_spectacul.jpg]

Nothing wrong with skepticism.

These images, however. 1st one looks like an artist sketch, 2nd one makes me wonder who would dare fly in the path of a jet to take a pic, or dare to open some kind of back door to take the pic.

The 3rd and 4th seem okay, but like all pics on the web, are they real or photoshopped?

That's why I prefer historical pics and videos other than modern ones.

Oh well, I’m not about to defend photos I didn’t take. I think I’m done here. Good luck.

“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
28-11-2014, 06:18 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 02:47 PM)Free Wrote:  What baffles me is that you have failed to understand that the .01% and 70% are mutually exclusive and completely unrelated.

The .01 is a category reflecting the % of UFO reports that are probably alien.
The 70% plausible position reflects one of those .01 reports.

In other words, the O'Hare UFO incident is among the .01 category, and I consider this particular case as being 70% plausible.

Sorry you didn't get that.

I get it quite well. The .01 is your prior probability going in that it might be an alien craft. You then apply several pieces of evidence, none of which rule out other categories of possible answers that add up to over 90% prior probability. You then magically jump to 70% resulting probability that it was alien despite not having ruled out better solutions. You want it to be an alien craft, therefore it is.

I'm sorry that you don't get how irrational that is. I get that you think there is a 70% chance that this is one of the .01% cases. You just haven't even come close to demonstrating that that is the best answer, let alone a reasonable one.

You accept the testimony at face value and believe that because they say it was a vehicle and was not any known terrestrial vehicle then that is a fact. I accept that the witnesses believe what they are saying. I do not accept that it is reasonable to believe that they could not have been mistaken about it being a vehicle, that they could not have been mistaken about it not being a known craft, that they could not be mistaken about the size, distance, and/or speed of whatever it was, etc (or even that they couldn't have decided to play a gag). There just isn't enough verifiable data to make the HUGE leap to 'probably alien' given the lack of unbiased, verifiable information. I'm just not that gullible.

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
28-11-2014, 06:23 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 06:18 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 02:47 PM)Free Wrote:  What baffles me is that you have failed to understand that the .01% and 70% are mutually exclusive and completely unrelated.

The .01 is a category reflecting the % of UFO reports that are probably alien.
The 70% plausible position reflects one of those .01 reports.

In other words, the O'Hare UFO incident is among the .01 category, and I consider this particular case as being 70% plausible.

Sorry you didn't get that.

I get it quite well. The .01 is your prior probability going in that it might be an alien craft. You then apply several pieces of evidence, none of which rule out other categories of possible answers that add up to over 90% prior probability. You then magically jump to 70% resulting probability that it was alien despite not having ruled out better solutions. You want it to be an alien craft, therefore it is.

I'm sorry that you don't get how irrational that is. I get that you think there is a 70% chance that this is one of the .01% cases. You just haven't even come close to demonstrating that that is the best answer, let alone a reasonable one.

You accept the testimony at face value and believe that because they say it was a vehicle and was not any known terrestrial vehicle then that is a fact. I accept that the witnesses believe what they are saying. I do not accept that it is reasonable to believe that they could not have been mistaken about it being a vehicle, that they could not have been mistaken about it not being a known craft, that they could not be mistaken about the size, distance, and/or speed of whatever it was, etc (or even that they couldn't have decided to play a gag). There just isn't enough verifiable data to make the HUGE leap to 'probably alien' given the lack of unbiased, verifiable information. I'm just not that gullible.

A witness saying "there was a strange craft" does not mean there actually was a strange craft.

Any more than a witness saying "there was a bigfoot" means there actually was a bigfoot.

It is deeply troubling to me that Free does not understand the distinction.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
28-11-2014, 06:37 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 05:52 PM)Free Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 05:45 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Read it.

Found the following images on the web for comparison and I remain skeptical of anything extra-terrestrial having caused the unexplained event.


[Image: breaking-speed-of-sound.jpg]

[Image: 2c3a47e300a84867cc2f70b74c2ae06b.jpg]

[Image: -skypunch-.-ice-crystals-form-above-the-...r._595.jpg]

[Image: 126718_nasa_releases_spectacul.jpg]

Nothing wrong with skepticism.

These images, however. 1st one looks like an artist sketch, 2nd one makes me wonder who would dare fly in the path of a jet to take a pic, or dare to open some kind of back door to take the pic.

The 3rd and 4th seem okay, but like all pics on the web, are they real or photoshopped?

That's why I prefer historical pics and videos other than modern ones.

You need to get out more.

[Image: F-22-Raptor.jpg]

[Image: gpw-20040817a-original-UnitedStatesNavy-...5V-024.jpg]

[Image: fighter-jets-at-mach-speeds1.JPG]

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, 06:53 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 06:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  [Image: fighter-jets-at-mach-speeds1.JPG]

Alright, this last photo...well...ahem (clears throat)

[Image: 25103267.jpg]

“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
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
28-11-2014, 07:50 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 06:23 PM)cjlr Wrote:  A witness saying "there was a strange craft" does not mean there actually was a strange craft.

Any more than a witness saying "there was a bigfoot" means there actually was a bigfoot.

It is deeply troubling to me that Free does not understand the distinction.

It is more troubling that either you are selective in what you are reading in this thread, or completely fail to understand what I am saying.

In your post above, you are portraying me as if my position is one of conclusiveness in regards to the UFO at O'hare. However, a quote of myself below demonstrates otherwise:

Quote:If I had to place a probability scale on whether or not 12 experienced eyewitnesses- who all described the exact same thing as being a metallic disc shaped object hovering 1600 feet above a hanger which accelerated through the clouds into space- it would be 90%.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ng?page=12

So is there any particular reason- other than perhaps some immature attempt to ridicule- that you appear to be misunderstanding me and misrepresenting my position?

Drinking Beverage

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, 08:43 PM (This post was last modified: 28-11-2014 10:06 PM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 06:18 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 02:47 PM)Free Wrote:  What baffles me is that you have failed to understand that the .01% and 70% are mutually exclusive and completely unrelated.

The .01 is a category reflecting the % of UFO reports that are probably alien.
The 70% plausible position reflects one of those .01 reports.

In other words, the O'Hare UFO incident is among the .01 category, and I consider this particular case as being 70% plausible.

Sorry you didn't get that.

I get it quite well. The .01 is your prior probability going in that it might be an alien craft.

No, the .01 represents a % of all UFO reports that I would consider as possibly being alien crafts, as per your post below:

Quote: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:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid692506


Quote:You then apply several pieces of evidence, none of which rule out other categories of possible answers

Not a good representation of my position at all.

Actually ...

I have argued that mankind does not have the technology to create a craft that had the kind of maneuverability as that which was described by the witnesses at O'Hare. Since no one can demonstrate that mankind does possess such technology, then mankind is successfully challenged.

I have argued against a hoax using reasoning about how difficult it would be to perform such a hoax as that, and demonstrated quite clearly how the O'Hare situation is a completely different ball-game then reports of Big Foot, ghosts, et al.

I have provided an assessment from the report I posted to Full Circle which details the extreme doubt that the hole in the clouds was caused by weather conditions or conventional aircraft, and obviously no one here read it except Full Circle.

So yes, I have indeed challenged other possibilities to diminish their plausibility. In a persuasive argument situation, no one can eliminate all other legitimate possibilities conclusively. The best that can be done is to provide an argument based upon the available evidence.

The problem I am having here with you and others is that you are not basing any of your arguments on the evidence itself. You say, "It could be this," or "It might be that, " or you post a few pictures of other things, some of which could not be possibly taken seriously as to having anything to do with what happened at O'Hare.

So just so you understand, you are arguing with absolutely no evidence to present.

So, does that mean that the the witnesses seen a space craft at O'hare, or that if it was an aircraft that it was alien? Absolutely NOT.

It is not a case of, "You can't prove me wrong, so I must be right," as some seem to suggest, but rather it is merely a case where you have failed to successfully challenge the argument using actual evidence.

Anybody can say, "They were hallucinating, "or "it was a big fucking bird," or "it was a crazy bag of hammers nailing crap to the sky," but at the end of the day, what evidence have you actually provided?

Speculation of what it else it could be is not evidence to contest the positive claims of the witnesses.

What evidence have you successfully disputed with actual evidence?

Damn few here seem to actually get the concept of these persuasive arguments.

And I am more than just a little surprised and disappointed at many people here.

Drinking Beverage

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
29-11-2014, 12:09 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 11:57 AM)Free Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 11:51 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  That's a strawman, no one is making a claim that eyewitness testimony is inadmissible. They are saying that the eyewitness testimony is not equivalent to the extraordinary nature of the claim. And its not.

And yes your analogy was terrible.

Really?

Here's his statement:

Quote:Except that there is no evidence that what they saw was an aircraft. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid692599

The O'Hare UFO incident has at least 12 eyewitnesses.

The issue is whether or not eyewitness testimony is considered to be evidence.

It's as simple as that.

Drinking Beverage

Apparently it's not that simple as you are not seeing the difference. When he says:
Quote:Except that there is no evidence that what they saw was an aircraft. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
He is 100% correct, there is no evidence that they saw an aircraft. No physical evidence of any kind, no images, no video, no material samples, no wreckage, no energy or radioactivity readings or recordings of environmental changes in or around the area.

The recording is not evidence that they a saw a vehicle, that recording is evidence that they claim they saw what they believed to be a vehicle. This is an actual and real distinction you need to recognize.
Eyewitness testimony that corresponds to the physical evidence is very valuable in a court and relied upon all the time. Eyewitness testimony that runs counter to, or does not support, the physical evidence is almost always universally discarded.
The problem is you don't have any physical evidence to determine if their claims are accurate and comport to reality and the evidence thus the claim that they saw a vehicle is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the judge would rule against you.

This is why you can't just take 12 people and have people you don't like thrown in jail based on just your testimony.

(28-11-2014 09:09 AM)Free Wrote:  If any of you had to make a decision of yes or no in regards to the question of whether or not intelligent alien life exists in the known universe, please respond with your answers in your next post, and with a probability scale greater or less than 50%. No fence sitters please. Make a decision either way.

This is just disappointing Free.
We don't have to say yes or no, because "I don't Know" is in this case the intellectually honest answer. It's not "fence sitting" it's intellectually honest, the insistence that you have to believe one way or another is not only fallacious it's a hallmark of the religious type of thinking that we so patiently reject.
It's more disappointing however because "alien life exists in the known universe" is not the claim you are making. You are making the claim that they exist AND that they travel billions of billions of light years to come to earth to hang out above airports for no discernible reason.
These are WILDLY different claims.

(28-11-2014 10:48 AM)Free Wrote:  Since both have no empirical evidence, then neither is conclusive. Both are plausible.
They are not EQUALLY plausible though. You are wildly in violation of Occam's Razor, your hypothesis requires the most assumptions to maintain and is thus the least plausible.

Now to close this post out I wanna look at one thing you said:
(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

This is just insanely wrong, to a degree I don't know how you can believe that. The scenario was in no meaningful way way identical, the only way they are similar is if you ignore all detail.

In your scenario they would have to be accusing an "unidentified entity" of sexual harassment, who does not originate on this planet and which no one else has ever seen. The judge would be provided with their testimony and no physical evidence that this "person" being charged even exists. No video, No recordings of the accused, no photographs no corroborating evidence of any kind.

A claim of sexual harassment against someone you can't demonstrate physically exists would not even make it to court. Your analogy was terrible on every single level.

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
[+] 4 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
29-11-2014, 09:44 AM (This post was last modified: 29-11-2014 10:11 AM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(29-11-2014 12:09 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 11:57 AM)Free Wrote:  Really?

Here's his statement:


http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid692599

The O'Hare UFO incident has at least 12 eyewitnesses.

The issue is whether or not eyewitness testimony is considered to be evidence.

It's as simple as that.

Drinking Beverage

Apparently it's not that simple as you are not seeing the difference. When he says:
Quote:Except that there is no evidence that what they saw was an aircraft. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
He is 100% correct, there is no evidence that they saw an aircraft. No physical evidence of any kind, no images, no video, no material samples, no wreckage, no energy or radioactivity readings or recordings of environmental changes in or around the area.

Then you, and anyone else who has argued this point, have absolutely miserably failed to reason and rationalize the sexual harassment analogy. Seriously, you are making a total fool of yourself.

In the sexual harassment analogy, there is no evidence that the defendant said anything at all. So how could the 12 witnesses' testimony get the defendant convicted, UNLESS the judge considered the testimony of the 12 witnesses' as EVIDENCE?

Therefore, in the other litigation analogy regarding the Chicago Tribune vrs the FAA, whereas the Tribune accuses the FAA of covering up reports that an unknown aircraft had invaded US airspace, why would the judge deny as evidence the testimony of the 12 witnesses who would testify that they had filed those reports- the same ones that were covered up- with their superiors?

You see, this is where you lose the plot, dude. Don't even try to defend yourself with this, you are Done. Fini. Kaput. Laughat

Quote:Oral testimony is the oldest kind of evidence. The oral testimony of witnesses can exclude or supplement documentary evidence. Under the U.S. law almost anyone can be a witness. The parties to the case, experts, even children, and convicted felons can testify.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/oral-testimony/


Quote:In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony

Quote:Oral evidence offered by a competent witness under oath, which is used to establish some fact or set of facts. Testimony is distinguishable from evidence that is acquired through the use of written sources, such as documents.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/testimony

Their testimony is evidence supporting the existence of an unknown aircraft in US airspace, and it supports the evidence covered up by the FAA.

CASE CLOSED. Big Grin

Since the rest of what you said is but more of the same inability to reason intelligently, there's no point in responding to it.

Thumbsup

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: