UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2015, 01:38 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 01:26 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 01:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  To wit -

That is not actually true, and you should really know it by now.

How many does it take before denying something becomes "fucking retarded", Free?

This many?

This is literally a textbook appeal to popularity.
(hint: that's a fallacy)

Tell me what's the difference here:

"12 people, not predisposed to expect something to happen ..."

verses ...

"The people had gathered because three young shepherd children had predicted that at high noon the lady who had appeared to them several times would perform a great miracle in a field near Fátima called Cova da Iria."

If that counts as priming, then your farcical purported "eyewitnesses" telling each other what they saw does too.
("hey, Joe, I think I see a UFO up there...")

Admit you're incapable of impartiality on the topic, and move on with your life.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
11-09-2015, 01:55 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 01:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 01:21 PM)Free Wrote:  Again, I do not see anything extraordinary with the claim of:

"12 credible people (and dozens more), very experienced with various aircraft, all described an aircraft as being something they could not identify as being man-made, and in which it performed far beyond any performance level any of them deemed possible by human standards."

So what is so extraordinary about that?

Big Grin

"and dozens more" is unattested. But, conveniently, none of them had any recording devices...

To even say "described an aircraft" is presuppositional and thus extraordinary - you'd have to establish that first, which you can't.

Like I keep saying, "the eyewitnesses established that it was an aircraft." And seeing since they are all very familiar with aircraft, why should we not believe them? Do you have another explanation they could all agree on?

Quote:"not ... man-made" is extraordinary.

That's you making a positive claim that does not exist in my quote. Here is my quote:

"described an aircraft as being something they could not identify as being man-made"

There can be no comparison between my quote and what you wilfully took out of context.

Quote:"beyond any performance level any of them deemed possible" is extraordinary.

Since it does not exclude man-made, it is not extraordinary, is it? It leaves the possibility of man-made in tact. It leaves room for doubt.


Quote:People agreeing on their subjective experience does not make it true. People making a claim does not make it true.

Absolutely correct.


Quote: In no other context do you accept such pathetic standards of proof.

I disagree. 12 eyewitnesses is a very good standard of evidence in any civilized court.

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
11-09-2015, 01:59 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 01:38 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 01:26 PM)Free Wrote:  Tell me what's the difference here:

"12 people, not predisposed to expect something to happen ..."

verses ...

"The people had gathered because three young shepherd children had predicted that at high noon the lady who had appeared to them several times would perform a great miracle in a field near Fátima called Cova da Iria."

If that counts as priming, then your farcical purported "eyewitnesses" telling each other what they saw does too.
("hey, Joe, I think I see a UFO up there...")

Admit you're incapable of impartiality on the topic, and move on with your life.

Obviously you didn't bother to read the case file. Because I have, I can dismiss your assertions above.

I suggest you read it before continuing.

Big Grin

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
11-09-2015, 02:05 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 01:55 PM)Free Wrote:  Like I keep saying, "the eyewitnesses established that it was an aircraft." And seeing since they are all very familiar with aircraft, why should we not believe them?

Because anecdotes are not reliable and even experts in the field of aviation can, and quite commonly do, misidentify things, to the point that actual investigators of the UFO phenomena have repeatedly noted that "surprisingly, commercial and military pilots appear to make relatively poor witnesses" (Hynek, The Hynek UFO Report).

Anecdotes don't start being evidence just because you want them to.

"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
11-09-2015, 02:06 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 01:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 01:30 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Nothing. It's just circular.

You are assuming their credibility when establishing it is your whole goal.

"If it were true then it would explain itself, therefore it's true".

He's simply not rational on the subject. Good luck getting him to admit that.

There is no reason to doubt their credibility. None. There is no evidence to make their credibility suspect. Hence, their credibility in identifying known aircraft is established simply by their professions.

Nothing is circular here.

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
11-09-2015, 02:06 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 02:06 PM)Free Wrote:  There is no reason to doubt their credibility. None.

Save that it hasn't been established.

"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
11-09-2015, 02:08 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2015 02:13 PM by cjlr.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 01:55 PM)Free Wrote:  Like I keep saying, "the eyewitnesses established that it was an aircraft."

And that's presuppositional. But you keep on swinging, buddy.

(11-09-2015 01:55 PM)Free Wrote:  And seeing since they are all very familiar with aircraft, why should we not believe them?

Their claim is extraordinary and there is no evidence. Those are two good reasons.

If you stuck to what was actually attested - they agreed that they saw something they cannot explain - nobody would mind.

(11-09-2015 01:55 PM)Free Wrote:  Do you have another explanation they could all agree on?

Literally anything. I have no way of knowing what they think ten years later.

(11-09-2015 01:55 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:"not ... man-made" is extraordinary.

That's you making a positive claim that does not exist in my quote. Here is my quote:

"described an aircraft as being something they could not identify as being man-made"

There can be no comparison between my quote and what you wilfully took out of context.

They could not identify it as man-made. Therefore they are asserting that it is not man-made.

That's not out of context. That's what you literally said. You don't get to pretend that you're not asserting something here.

If we (by which I mean you) were more honest about it, it wouldn't present as much of a problem. Identifying an unexplained phenomenon as not man-made is not extraordinary. Identifying an aircraft - explicitly an aircraft, remember, because you only examine the claim while already layers-deep in confirmation bias - as such is extraordinary.

So no, yet again disingenuously dancing back from certainty to possibility doesn't particularly impress me.

(11-09-2015 01:55 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:"beyond any performance level any of them deemed possible" is extraordinary.

Since it does not exclude man-made, it is not extraordinary, is it? It leaves the possibility of man-made in tact. It leaves room for doubt.

It leaves the possibility intact? The possibility you already reject?

You can't selectively interpret the testimony you're echoing. You don't get to pick and choose.

(11-09-2015 01:55 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:People agreeing on their subjective experience does not make it true. People making a claim does not make it true.

Absolutely correct.

The problem isn't that you can't acknowledge this in the abstract, but that you can't acknowledge it in the specific.

(11-09-2015 01:55 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote: In no other context do you accept such pathetic standards of proof.

I disagree. 12 eyewitnesses is a very good standard of evidence in any civilized court.

So, the apparitions at Fatima, then? There were a lot more than twelve people claiming to have seen that...

And more to the point, the courtroom is a godawful analogy.

Or did we suddenly replace all the review boards of scientific journals while I wasn't looking?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
11-09-2015, 02:17 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 01:59 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 01:38 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If that counts as priming, then your farcical purported "eyewitnesses" telling each other what they saw does too.
("hey, Joe, I think I see a UFO up there...")

Admit you're incapable of impartiality on the topic, and move on with your life.

Obviously you didn't bother to read the case file. Because I have, I can dismiss your assertions above.

I suggest you read it before continuing.

Big Grin

Oh, come the fuck on.

Sample extracts, bolding for emphasis:
Quote: In the first version, the details provided to
NARCAP by witness B are given. He said that while they were parked they both overheard a radio message from the flight crew of the B-737-500 at gate C17 talking on their company frequency about, "...a circle or disc shapped (sic) object hovering over gate."
Quote: According to a report submitted to the National UFO Reporting Center (Appendix G), witness D was working in his office when he heard the operation's center announcement about the UAP over the company's radio frequency at about 4:30 pm.

Priming. Check and mate.

It's provable that "do you see what I see?" elicits more positive responses than "what do you see?" in experiments on human perception.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
11-09-2015, 02:31 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2015 02:38 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 02:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 01:55 PM)Free Wrote:  Like I keep saying, "the eyewitnesses established that it was an aircraft."

And that's presuppositional. But you keep on swinging, buddy.

It's not an assumption of mine. It's a fact within the case file. 12 credible witness- credible because they are all familiar with various aircraft- all claim it was nothing but an aircraft.

Quote:
(11-09-2015 01:55 PM)Free Wrote:  And seeing since they are all very familiar with aircraft, why should we not believe them?

Their claim is extraordinary and there is no evidence. Those are two good reasons.

You are making a positive claim that it's an extraordinary claim.

None of them made a positive claim that it was definitely an alien aircraft, although some cited it as being possible.

So now you must prove it is an extraordinary claim.

Also, again ad nausium, oral evidence from 12 credible witnesses is excellent evidence indeed, in any court.

Quote:
(11-09-2015 01:55 PM)Free Wrote:  Do you have another explanation they could all agree on?

Literally anything.

Okay, well then, show us something? Convince me.

Big Grin

Quote:
(11-09-2015 01:55 PM)Free Wrote:  That's you making a positive claim that does not exist in my quote. Here is my quote:

"described an aircraft as being something they could not identify as being man-made"

There can be no comparison between my quote and what you wilfully took out of context.

They could not identify it as man-made. Therefore they are asserting that it is not man-made.

They made no positive claims. They could not identify it as being man-made does not excuse the possibility that someone else may be able to identify it as being man-made.

There's room to doubt here, so what's the problem?

Quote:That's not out of context. That's what you literally said. You don't get to pretend that you're not asserting something here.

Yep, it is out of context and does not truthfully represent by quote. You insist on non existent positive claims at the exclusion of other options such as the fact there is room for doubt if somebody else may have been capable of identifying the object as being man-made, or some other explanation of what it actually was.

Quote:If we (by which I mean you) were more honest about it, it wouldn't present as much of a problem. Identifying an unexplained phenomenon as not man-made is not extraordinary. Identifying an aircraft - explicitly an aircraft, remember, because you only examine the claim while already layers-deep in confirmation bias - as such is extraordinary.

So no, yet again disingenuously dancing back from certainty to possibility doesn't particularly impress me.

No, you're just not thinking clearly here.

Quote:
(11-09-2015 01:55 PM)Free Wrote:  Since it does not exclude man-made, it is not extraordinary, is it? It leaves the possibility of man-made in tact. It leaves room for doubt.

It leaves the possibility intact? The possibility you already reject?

Ummm ... I guess you didn't read this thread where I showed a percentage of possibilities, and man-made had the highest possibility rating?

Dude, stop assuming things here. Calm down, take a pill ... relax.

Big Grin

Quote:You can't selectively interpret the testimony you're echoing. You don't get to pick and choose.

What? I am not allowed to have an opinion based upon my experience? Heaven forbid!

Should I look over my shoulder for the RCMP?

Quote:
(11-09-2015 01:55 PM)Free Wrote:  I disagree. 12 eyewitnesses is a very good standard of evidence in any civilized court.

So, the apparitions at Fatima, then? There were a lot more than twelve people claiming to have seen that...

Didn't I demonstrate that as being a false comparison already? If you want to continue making that comparison, it's all on you.

Quote:And more to the point, the courtroom is a godawful analogy.

Or did we suddenly replace all the review boards of scientific journals while I wasn't looking?

This is an issue that requires judgements. Since there is no physical evidence, science can't help here any more than it can help in a death threat court case.

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
11-09-2015, 02:35 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2015 02:51 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 02:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 01:59 PM)Free Wrote:  Obviously you didn't bother to read the case file. Because I have, I can dismiss your assertions above.

I suggest you read it before continuing.

Big Grin

Oh, come the fuck on.

Sample extracts, bolding for emphasis:
Quote: In the first version, the details provided to
NARCAP by witness B are given. He said that while they were parked they both overheard a radio message from the flight crew of the B-737-500 at gate C17 talking on their company frequency about, "...a circle or disc shapped (sic) object hovering over gate."
Quote: According to a report submitted to the National UFO Reporting Center (Appendix G), witness D was working in his office when he heard the operation's center announcement about the UAP over the company's radio frequency at about 4:30 pm.

Priming. Check and mate.

It's provable that "do you see what I see?" elicits more positive responses than "what do you see?" in experiments on human perception.

And this is all at the exclusion of the rest of the evidence? At that point, nobody at O'Hare was expecting anything at all. All you are describing here is a natural reaction, which can be easily understood as a group of professionals showing concern regarding an aerial object that should not be where it was.

Fatima? Oh yes ... for days it was "prophesied" that a vision would be seen, sending many believers into a frenzy and so 30,000 believers all showed up with the total expectation of seeing the promised visions.

Conclusion: False comparison.

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: