UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-09-2015, 01:34 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 01:31 PM)Free Wrote:  I find absolutely nothing outlandish about non human intelligent life visiting earth. In fact, I see it as inevitable that we will eventually find some kind of an alien life form- intelligent or otherwise- possibly right here in our own solar system.

These two propositions are not equivalent, no matter how much you try to equivocate between them. The probability of one does not affect the probability of the other beyond the most basic idea of "if alien life does not exist, it has by necessity not visited Earth".

This is an extremely basic concept, and your arguments will go nowhere so long as you fail to understand it.

Beyond this, you are being extremely dishonest in stating that you are only arguing that it is possible for alien life to have visited Earth. You claim to have evidence that it has actually happened, not just that it is possible.

Retreating to "I'm just saying it's possible" when your "evidence" is shown to be worthless is entirely disingenuous. You are lying to us, and possibly to yourself, about the details of your position in order to try and save face when shown that your case for alien visitation is without merit.

Being wrong is fine.

Being a disingenuous liar is 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
[+] 5 users Like Unbeliever's post
10-09-2015, 02:11 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 01:07 PM)Hobbitgirl Wrote:  
(10-09-2015 12:59 PM)Free Wrote:  "Very weak evidence?"

If you mean individual testimonies from people who make claims that defy nature, I see no evidence nor reason to accept those claims at all.

Exactly. Same with flying saucers.

Curious ...

How can a UFO defy nature?

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, 02:15 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 02:11 PM)Free Wrote:  
(10-09-2015 01:07 PM)Hobbitgirl Wrote:  Exactly. Same with flying saucers.

Curious ...

How can a UFO defy nature?

*You're* the guy who mentioned claims that defy nature. Things like ghosts and the like is I assume what you refer to. She's just saying that the evidence proferred for ghosts etc is precisely as strong as the evidence proferred for alien visitations. By the way there are plenty of fine upstanding citizens prepared to give you wonderful eyewitness testimony about ghosts. People who have no reason to lie.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
10-09-2015, 02:23 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 02:15 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(10-09-2015 02:11 PM)Free Wrote:  Curious ...

How can a UFO defy nature?

*You're* the guy who mentioned claims that defy nature. Things like ghosts and the like is I assume what you refer to. She's just saying that the evidence proferred for ghosts etc is precisely as strong as the evidence proferred for alien visitations. By the way there are plenty of fine upstanding citizens prepared to give you wonderful eyewitness testimony about ghosts. People who have no reason to lie.


Thank you sir. That's exactly what I was saying. Thought i was clear. Apparently not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hobbitgirl's post
10-09-2015, 02:31 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 02:11 PM)Free Wrote:  Curious ...

How can a UFO defy nature?

Well, appearing from nowhere, performing actions that are, as you said, beyond human understanding of the limits of aviation and the laws of physics, then vanishing without a trace. This is, of course, without even getting into the problems with stealth in space or the practical barriers to interstellar travel, which these craft appear to be able to circumvent at will for no apparent reason.

Actual UFOs - that is to say, flying objects which cannot be immediately identified, not alien craft - don't defy nature, of course. But when you start adding aliens to the equation... well.

Things get a bit silly.

"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
[+] 6 users Like Unbeliever's post
10-09-2015, 02:49 PM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2015 02:58 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 02:15 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(10-09-2015 02:11 PM)Free Wrote:  Curious ...

How can a UFO defy nature?

*You're* the guy who mentioned claims that defy nature. Things like ghosts and the like is I assume what you refer to. She's just saying that the evidence proferred for ghosts etc is precisely as strong as the evidence proferred for alien visitations. By the way there are plenty of fine upstanding citizens prepared to give you wonderful eyewitness testimony about ghosts. People who have no reason to lie.

I did? Where?

Anyways, I understand all that.

Can we actually make that comparison though?

When it comes to the issues of ghosts, are we not often reading stories or watching TV shows were the so-called "investigators" are predisposed to such beliefs? We know they are, so that casts doubt immediately.

Do we have mass sightings of ghosts in which the people were not predisposed to expecting such a vision?

Does a ghost defy nature as we know it, or is it '"supernatural?"

And finally, are we not comparing a possible physical manifestation to something not physical?

When it comes to ghosts there are far too many other plausible explanations that come into play.

1. Hoax
2. Misinterpretation of what is seen.
3. Overactive imaginations.

The list goes on.

Hoax: Unlikely, for do you really think someone could pull off a hoax 1700 feet up in the sky, at one of the world's busiest airports, in front of dozens of witness by making an object identified as an aircraft hover for a few minutes, and then zip off into orbit in a second or two?

Misinterpretation of what is seen: Possibly, but since the same described object was seen from various distances and various people, it is unlikely.

Over-active imaginations: Possibly, but I find it difficult to believe that all these witnesses could imagine the exact same thing at the exact same time. What are the odds?

So a good question is, was the object real?

The chances are very good considering the testimony that the object described was real, and considering the other evidence involved with the case.

So what was it? If the chances are excellent that the object was real, and the object was seen performing beyond any known human capabilities, then what was it?

Was it a secret government experiment? What kind of government protects its secrets in broad daylight over one of the world's busiest airports?

No matter how you look at this case, too many ordinary explanations fall by the waste side as being unlikely, improbable, and implausible.

It doesn't mean any of those explanations are impossible, as each one still has at least some degree of possibility, however remote.

So, if we accept that it was real, and it performed as described, does it mean aliens? No, aliens are only one possible explanation, and they are made possible by the fact that we already know that intelligent life exists in the universe, beginning here on earth.

So what do we know, and what can we claim with a degree of confidence?

We can say that an aerial object of unknown origin was most likely hovering over Chicago O'Hare Airport in broad daylight and was witnessed by at least 12 experienced aviation experts, and who described this craft- as they seen it from various locations and distances- with very similar portrayals.

We can say that many of these aviation expert witnesses described the object as performing far beyond any human capabilities they are aware of.

We can say that the official records obtained by the Chicago Tribune under the Freedom of Information Act exposed a real attempted cover-up of the incident.

We can say that employees of Chicago O'Hare airport who were witnesses were threatened with dismissal if they spoke to the media about it, according to several of these interviewed witnesses.

We can say lots of things, but we cannot say with any degree of conclusiveness is that what they observed was in fact an alien craft.

We can only entertain the possibility, according to the evidence available.

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, 02:50 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 06:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 10:21 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I have stated that there is no evidence supporting the idea of aliens having visited Earth, and so the assertion must be considered false, which is true.

I don't agree.
Dismissing an unevidenced claim does not determine its truth value, it dismisses it because the truth value cannot be evaluated.

I missed this in the scrum.

As per usual, there's no actual disagreement here. We're phrasing the same thing in different ways.

"The assertion must be considered false" is not the same thing as "the assertion actually is false". The latter is a fallacy - having no evidence regarding the truth value of a claim does not necessarily mean that the claim is false. There are other ways to determine that, and they do refer to a lack of evidence towards it being true, but this comes with a set of special qualifiers that I'm not going to get into here.

The former, however, is just what you said phrased slightly differently. "We must consider the assertion false" refers to the fact that we will behave as though the unevidenced assertion is not true, not a statement that it is definitively so.

As an illustrative example, take the topic of this thread. Until actual evidence of alien visitation is put forth, there is no point in behaving as though it happens. We act as though it is not true - though we are, of course, open to future evidence which can overturn that. We consider the assertion false.

Now, this isn't the perfect example, because honestly, at this point, alien visitation is as close to provably false as anything can be. There's simply too much evidence against it at this point; again, we're observing the solar system and seeing nothing, every time we've gone looking for evidence of alien visitation we've turned up nothing, we know of a hell of a lot of practical limitations on interstellar travel, life in the universe is demonstrably rather rare and far-flung, a civilized species may simply lack the resources on its home world to achieve interstellar flight, and so forth. The discovery of alien life visiting Earth would, at this point, result in as much of an upheaval as disproving relativity. That's pretty much proven, in my book; anything else is playing meaningless word games with its definition.

You are, of course, all free to disagree with the latter, though I do think it is the only rational conclusion which can be reached. But regardless, without any affirmative evidence regarding alien visitation, the only rational way to handle the situation is to go about your lives as if it isn't true.

While being open to further evidence, of course. That is also one of the key points of rational thought.

"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
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
10-09-2015, 02:54 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 02:49 PM)Free Wrote:  Can we actually make that comparison though?

Yes.

(10-09-2015 02:49 PM)Free Wrote:  When it comes to the issues of ghosts, are we not often reading stories or watching TV shows were the so-called "investigators" are predisposed to such beliefs?

<snip>

The list goes on.

Literally everything that you list applies to alien visitation as much as to ghosts.

You seem particularly deluded regarding the level of expertise that proponents of the alien visitation idea possess. They are, to a man, demonstrably rather silly.

(10-09-2015 02:49 PM)Free Wrote:  Misinterpretation of what is seen: Possibly, but since the same described object was seen from various distances and various people, it is unlikely.

Over-active imaginations: Possibly, but I find it difficult to believe that all these witnesses could imagine the exact same thing at the exact same time. What are the odds?

Rather good, really.

You can pretend that anecdotal accounts, human perception, and memory are reliable all you like, but they remain demonstrably fallible.

(10-09-2015 02:49 PM)Free Wrote:  So a good question is, was the object real?

No one cares whether or not the object was real.

The actual question is "was the object an alien craft?"

"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
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
10-09-2015, 02:57 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 02:49 PM)Free Wrote:  We can say lots of things, but we cannot say with any degree of conclusiveness is that what they observed was in fact an alien craft.
With you this far.

Quote:We can only entertain the possibility, according to the evidence available.
What value would you put on that possibility? Remote, improbable but believable, 50/50, more likely than not, or practical certainty?

IMO, what I've seen so far, when I actually cared to read up on this stuff in the long long ago, all that guff you just typed about confirmation bias and ghost sitings applies very neatly to alien visitations. So I rate it about as probable as that I am the uncrowned long lost rightful king of Atlantis.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
10-09-2015, 03:05 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 02:57 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(10-09-2015 02:49 PM)Free Wrote:  We can say lots of things, but we cannot say with any degree of conclusiveness is that what they observed was in fact an alien craft.
With you this far.

Quote:We can only entertain the possibility, according to the evidence available.
What value would you put on that possibility? Remote, improbable but believable, 50/50, more likely than not, or practical certainty?

IMO, what I've seen so far, when I actually cared to read up on this stuff in the long long ago, all that guff you just typed about confirmation bias and ghost sitings applies very neatly to alien visitations. So I rate it about as probable as that I am the uncrowned long lost rightful king of Atlantis.

If the object was real, I can break it down like this:

Was it imagination? 1%
Was it a lie? 1%
Was it a hoax? 1%
Was it mass hallucination? 1%
Was it man-made? 40%
Was it alien? 20%
Was it various other? 36%?

At the end of the day I conclude that the aviation experts witnessed an unknown aircraft that performed far beyond anything known to them.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: