UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2015, 04:48 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 08:58 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 08:42 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I take exception to your exception! Evil_monster

I catch your exception and display an error message

Doesn't a double fault exception reset the processor? Consider

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
11-09-2015, 04:50 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 04:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 08:58 AM)morondog Wrote:  I catch your exception and display an error message

Doesn't a double fault exception reset the processor? Consider

I retire in shame to document my private methods Sad

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
11-09-2015, 04:56 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 11:09 AM)Free Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 09:25 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  My assumption is that he's just too close to the subject matter for objectivity. Undecided

On my very first post on this forum I stated very clearly what my position was on the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life.

Where you see a remote possibility, I see a greater probability. Why do you think that is?

You may say, "Well you are predisposed to believe in this sort of thing," and I will answer, "Yes, but why?"

Experience.

I have reviewed literally thousands of the most credible and yet unexplained claims of alien visitations ever reported. In all of these unexplained claims, there were multiple witnesses and they were highly credible.

I have studied the history of UFO reports which go back to long before the words "flying saucer" and UFO were ever coined.

I have examined many old photographs that have never been debunked.

I have interviewed claimants myself, including two police officers, and found them to be exceptionally credible.

And personally, I am one of 6 witnesses who witnessed a definite yet unidentified aircraft up close and personal back in the early-mid 1970s. This aircraft was virtually identical in description to the Chicago O'Hare incident, and it's performance was exactly as they described; earth to orbit in 2 seconds, blowing a circular hole in the sky in front of all of us. This aircraft was hovering directly over our houses, no more than 40 feet above. I could have thrown a rock and hit it.

You have reason to be highly doubtful, but I have reason to not be so doubtful.

Experience in this issue does matter. It will affect the way you evaluate things and understand things, just like it does in any number of other things. But also, it trains you to be honestly sceptical about such claims, which is exactly why I never post any recent YouTube videos as there are so many hoaxes these days as to render them all inadequate.

But there are many UFO reports that nobody here, or anywhere, can rationally explain away with any degree of accuracy whatsoever.

Here, with Chicago O'Hare, 12 very credible witnesses (and dozens others), from various locations, all identified an aircraft of unknown origin, that could perform far beyond any known human capabilities.

And that is exceptional.

So yes, I am predisposed, but experience is the reason.

The existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is almost certain, in our galaxy it's less likely.

However, there really is no more evidence of alien visitation than there is for the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot. That is why most here think it very unlikely.

People's testimony is not credible evidence in this; people's senses, impressions, and memory are all too fallible.

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
11-09-2015, 05:06 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(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"

People see effects and often their minds invent a cause. See this.

Quote: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.

This is not a courtroom case.

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
11-09-2015, 05:08 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 02:06 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 01:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  "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.

Their testimony cannot be simply accepted; minds are too fallible.

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
11-09-2015, 05:17 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 03:05 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I invite you to meditate on what you refuse to understand:
To claim something is a possibility is necessarily to assert its existence.

I don't entirely agree with that. It only contains the unspoken "assuming that the necessary conditions are true".

It is possible that aliens have visited the Earth, if and only if they exist and the physics of the universe allow faster-than-light transit.
The former is likely, the latter not so much.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
11-09-2015, 05:29 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 05:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(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"

People see effects and often their minds invent a cause. See this.

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


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.



Absolutely correct.



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

This is not a courtroom case.

But, Chas, surely you recall, as do we all, that when the Scopes verdict among other acts upheld the criminality of teaching evolution, the very fabric of the universe reconstituted itself in order to make that ruling reflect reality?

Oh. Wait. That didn't happen, and using courtroom metaphors to argue to scientific truths is, to borrow a phrase from a certain charmingly vituperative interlocutor of ours, "fucking retarded".

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 05:47 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 03:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 03:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Asserting it isn't evidence isn't doing you any good. Please refer to the Canadian Law listed below regarding death threats. These types of threats leave no physical evidence, and the only evidence that can be supplied are eyewitness accounts.

If oral evidence can be used to prove the existence of a death threat, and result in a truth claim being considered true, then likewise in this case it also can apply.

Oh hello there, pointless red herring. How are the waters today?

That's a lie.

I dealt with your assertion that "oral evidence isn't evidence" head on, and demonstrated how it is in fact considered evidence.

The only red herring here is your false accusation of one.

Quote:
(11-09-2015 03:48 PM)Free Wrote:  No. See at the bottom of this post.

It rather is. Deal with it.

No, it is not. You can deal with that.

Big Grin

Quote:
(11-09-2015 03:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Scientists have very strong beliefs in the possibility of alien life existing in this universe, and so do I. Earth is the precedent we can use as evidence of intelligent life possibly existing elsewhere in the universe.

Mankind's accomplishments can be used as evidence that it is possible for intelligent life in the universe to travel to other worlds.

"Humans have travelled 400000 kilometres therefore aliens can travel hundreds of light-years".

Wait, no. That's insane troll logic.

Assuming no other possibilities again? Oh my, but your fallaciousness blinds you to other possibilities:

1. Perhaps they are from earth.
2. Perhaps they are from within our own solar system.
3. Perhaps they are nomads.

We can also use mankind's technological evolutionary progress as evidence to demonstrate how intelligent life within the universe can also evolve to create newer technologies in regards to such things as space travel.

Hence, we can surmise as possible that any intelligent alien life existing in other parts of the universe could have evolved technologically beyond what we humans are currently capable of understanding.

Quote:
(11-09-2015 03:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Since we can accept the above as evidence to support possibility, then possibility is established, however remote.

cf God.

You don't want to play that game.

For you to make the comparison valid, demonstrate with any evidence how a supernatural/metaphysical/divine existence of something we can regard as God can exist.

And then when you are done doing that, demonstrate how this God you can dream up can possibly be compared to an aerial object, described as physical, with a distinct shape, and with manoeuvrability can in any way be compared to your God.

Dude, I'll own your fucking ass if you want to play this game. Go for it.

Big Grin

Quote:
(11-09-2015 03:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Rather evasive of the point I must say.

You're presupposing the validity of testimony based on whether it agrees with beliefs you already hold.

That's not rational, it's cherry-picking.

No, not at all.

Although I do indeed hold beliefs, they have nothing to do with how I evaluate the validity of the testimony. The testimony is evaluated based upon many factors, and none of it has anything to do with what I believe.

Quote:
(11-09-2015 03:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Quite a few. Read below:


http://www.normstanford.com/charges-defe...g-threats/

Hearsay isn't sufficient to obtain a conviction.

Yeah okay, so tell that to the Canadian justice system that imprisons people for death threats based upon eyewitness testimony. Perhaps you can convince them to change the laws according to your version of what constitutes evidence.

You never know; you might get lucky?

Big Grin

Quote: I could file charges against you right now, alleging you threatened me. How seriously would they be taken?

That depends on who witnessed the threat, now wouldn't it? With just you and me involved, you wouldn't have much of a chance when its just my word against yours.

But hey, what do you think the odds would be of you getting a conviction against me if 12 eyewitnesses took the stand on your behalf?

Gasp!

Did a light bulb just go off in your head?

Laugh out load

Quote:Notwithstanding that courtroom proceedings do not decide reality.

If that was the case, then murders never really happened. Nobody really broke into a store. No crime ever really happened.

Big Grin

(11-09-2015 03:48 PM)Free Wrote:  No.

When a possibility is asserted, it is not a positive claim of existence, but rather a positive claim about the possible existence.

You're equivocating.

Is that how you intend to get out of this?

Quote:Something as a possible specific explanation requires a priori substantiation.

Check! Done that!

Quote:
(11-09-2015 03:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Where something is claimed to be a possibility, at least some evidence should be supplied to demonstrate said possibility. The evidence to demonstrate possibility should not be, and cannot be, as strong as evidence required on an assertion of positive existence.

Ignorance and the unknown do not demonstrate possibility.

But we are not ignorant, hence possibility is demonstrated.

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, 05:53 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 05:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 02:06 PM)Free Wrote:  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.

Their testimony cannot be simply accepted; minds are too fallible.

The combined testimonies of such a large group of people who are credible in the identification of aircraft definitely warrants serious consideration to support the possibility.

Sure, a couple of kids claiming to see an object over a lake performing unusually should be dismissed. But this is nothing like that.

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, 06:06 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 05:53 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 05:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  Their testimony cannot be simply accepted; minds are too fallible.

The combined testimonies of such a large group of people who are credible in the identification of aircraft definitely warrants serious consideration to support the possibility.

Sure, a couple of kids claiming to see an object over a lake performing unusually should be dismissed. But this is nothing like that.

Large groups that have had a chance to talk to each other about what they saw creates a confirmation bias.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like pablo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: