UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-09-2015, 11:33 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 11:25 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(10-09-2015 05:39 AM)JonMJ33 Wrote:  Attack the information directly, not the manner in which it was presented. Otherwise you are just beating around the bush. Oh that's right you probably did not watch the hours and hours of testimony and lectures given during the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure.

Given the charlatans and frauds which have populated this field for decades, the fact that they aren't under oath is pertinent.

(10-09-2015 05:39 AM)JonMJ33 Wrote:  Perhaps you should stop talking and actually watch what actually happened.

I'll let you know when I want your advice. Until that time, fuck off.

The words flogging and dead horse spring to mind with the two tin foilers here I'm afraid, btw nomadic aliens wasn't that from independence day ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 11:34 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 10:53 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 08:27 PM)Free Wrote:  Conclusion: False Comparison.

Not at all. You are inserting your personal beliefs into unknown areas when you argue, "UFOs are alien". As I've already shown, that leap is unsupportable because its two premises have absolutely no evidence, and one of those premises is so improbable as to require definitive evidence before it can be granted.

Lacking that evidence, you're still inserting your belief into a gap in knowledge without justification.

It may not be about religion (or it may, depends on how "passionate" you are about it), but this is classic GotG thinking.

I consider the multiple eyewitness testimonies as evidence, regardless if you agree with it or not.

Those testimonies indicate that the following:

1. It was an unknown aircraft, and not anything else.
2. It could not be identified by experienced aviation experts as being of a design known to them.
3. It's performance was deemed "impossible" for human technology to accomplish by aviation experts.

So, do I make a positive claim by saying "It was aliens?"

No, I take the more reasonable position and say, "Possibly." I do not reach a conclusion of positive existence as a theist does when he says, "Therefore, it IS God."

When I say, "possible," it leaves room for "not possible."

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 11:35 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 07:48 AM)Free Wrote:  Precedences are considered evidence to support possibilities. So, fuck yes, evidence has been supplied.

"Precedence" makes no sense in the context of that sentence. Would you clarify what you meaen, so that I can understand what evidence it is you think you have?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 11:38 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 11:35 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(10-09-2015 07:48 AM)Free Wrote:  Precedences are considered evidence to support possibilities. So, fuck yes, evidence has been supplied.

"Precedence" makes no sense in the context of that sentence. Would you clarify what you meaen, so that I can understand what evidence it is you think you have?

Here is it in an analogy:

Question: Can intelligent life possibly exist elsewhere in the universe?
Answer: Yes, for earth has intelligent life and is part of the universe.

The answer to the question serves as a precedent to qualify the possibility that alien live can exist elsewhere in the universe because the evidence is the human race.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 11:40 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 11:19 AM)Free Wrote:  Actual physical evidence may be required to conclusively prove the existence of alien visitation, but multiple eyewitness testimony of the exact same event which defies all known aspects of human origin is indeed evidence to support the possibility.

No, it isn't.

(10-09-2015 11:19 AM)Free Wrote:  Sure, it can support the possibility of numerous other things also, but with careful evaluation and reasoning of all other possibilities insomuch as they are virtually eliminated

This does not happen.

(10-09-2015 11:19 AM)Free Wrote:  No, I make you look foolish and will do it again.

[Image: mlfw10591_medium.jpg]

(10-09-2015 11:19 AM)Free Wrote:  Says the one who attempted to use Bigfoot for his comparison.

In case you are unaware, many Bigfoot proponents argue that Bigfoot is a sapient, civilized species living alongside us.

But this is irrelevant. I find it rather amusing that you threatened to make me look foolish - again, no less - and then so blatantly dodged the issue.

(10-09-2015 11:19 AM)Free Wrote:  Okay, so what are those "dozen problems?"

I already supplied two of the more obvious ones. If you are going to argue that they could have begun as planet-based life and then become nomads, well, that puts you right back where you started regarding the impractical nature of interstellar travel.

(10-09-2015 11:19 AM)Free Wrote:  And this somehow excuses you from contradicting yourself?

I didn't. You failed to understand what was said.

There is a difference.

(10-09-2015 11:19 AM)Free Wrote:  You are aware that there are many unexplained UFO reports from space itself including some yet-to-be debunked and unexplainable footage by Nasa?

First of all, brilliant source, I must say. Doesn't look biased at all, the way it calls itself EXTRATERRESTRIAL TV and uses a little green alien as its logo. And the title? Magnificent. "NASA UFO's◄ STS-48 Incident◄ Amazing UFO Footage ★★★"? It doesn't look silly at all.

Secondly, regarding the footage itself, it's not particularly unexplainable. In fact, it has been explained; NASA analyzed the footage and found that it was ice particles and the flash of a thruster firing. Phil Plait discusses the incident in his book Bad Astronomy, which you should probably read, seeing as you seem confused over the details of most of these incidents.

Meanwhile, those who reject NASA's explanation of events are Lan Fleming, a claimed computer scientist who seemingly does nothing but look for evidence of aliens, and Jack Kasher, a known crank who claims that alien spaceships are torus-shaped because of "free energy". Not particularly compelling.

Even ignoring that, the best you have is still "we don't know, therefore aliens".

(10-09-2015 11:19 AM)Free Wrote:  This is one of the damn few videos I actually respect.

Says a lot, really.

(10-09-2015 11:19 AM)Free Wrote:  No, your contradicted yourself. You cannot claim that an eyewitness testimony of what he may see on or near another planet would constitute evidence

Again, I didn't. I said that we should observe alien craft moving within the solar system if alien visitation occurs.

We do not.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
10-09-2015, 11:43 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 11:27 AM)Free Wrote:  That's true, but we are not exactly talking about science here. We cannot conclusively say that what is being argued here has anything to do with science.

me irl

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
10-09-2015, 11:43 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 11:40 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(10-09-2015 11:19 AM)Free Wrote:  Actual physical evidence may be required to conclusively prove the existence of alien visitation, but multiple eyewitness testimony of the exact same event which defies all known aspects of human origin is indeed evidence to support the possibility.

No, it isn't.

And yet another false comparison? When do your fucking fallacies end? Did you even read that site to notice how they are speaking of individual testimonies and testimonies predisposed with beliefs in the first place?

If this is the kind of bullshit you are going to argue and waste my time with, we are done here.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 11:44 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 09:17 AM)Free Wrote:  Yes but you see, the unique thing about us humans is our ability to distinguish as to what has entered into the realm of ridiculousness from what is capable of entering the realm of reason.

We can reason that it is ridiculous to think you might be a pink unicorn.

It is not ridiculous to to reason that non human intelligent life could possibly exist. If it was unreasonable, then we need explanations as to why such esteemed scientists such as Stephen Hawking and thousands of others are actively supporting the search for non human intelligent life.

They search because we have reason to believe.

I'm pretty sure she's already said she thinks alien life probably exists ("Do I think there are extraterrestrials? Sure. Do I think they are flying around probing people from trailer parks? No.")

The biggest objection to the alien hypothesis explaining UFOs is not the fact that we've yet to find aliens; the math means that there are almost assuredly intelligent alien races. The biggest stumbling block is the premise that they are visiting here.

To paraphrase Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -- which in this case is lacking. Some photos, some reports, but in the day and age of video proliferation in society, you'd think that there would be less than nine years since the last decent video, as one of y'all said earlier in the thread.

There's no evidence that UFOs have alien provenance, much less alien pilots.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 11:48 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 11:43 AM)Free Wrote:  And yet another false comparison?

You don't know what that means, do you?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 11:49 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
At work.

I do think Unbeliever has raised a good point.

Where are the 'Lots' of astronomers (Back yard or other wise) who scan the skies every night NOT seemingly coming forwards with any images of these supposed strange craft?

Why do these lights only manifest well within our gravity well and atmosphere?

Why are these sopposed craft NOT seen transiting between us and the Moon? Or any other celestial body? Even once, by accident?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: