UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-09-2015, 09:13 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(12-09-2015 09:09 AM)Free Wrote:  
(12-09-2015 09:07 AM)morondog Wrote:  Ah yes, you can't answer so you retreat to the position that those who disagree are stupid. You supercilious bastard. Go fuck yourself.

The answers are in the case file.

Therefore, like a young earth creationist, you should go study up on it before you open your fucking mouth and look like an uneducated disingenuous prick.

Drinking Beverage

Your dick is in your mouth Rolleyes You have failed to answer a single question, all of which have been reasonable. You have such great faith yet you become defensive as soon as you're challenged. One of us is being a disingenuous prick here and it ain't me.

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
12-09-2015, 09:15 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(12-09-2015 08:40 AM)Free Wrote:  Many here, including myself, subscribe to the Big Bang theory as being plausible. Why?

We see circumstantial evidence to support the theory. We "eyewitness" objects in space moving away from what appears to be a central point and arrive at a conclusion that the event may have happened.

But where's the singularity? We don't have it. We have absolutely no concrete evidence at all for a Big Bang, but the circumstantial "eyewitness" evidence of things moving away from a central point, and a few other factors makes the theory plausible.

The Big Bang can be viewed as an extraordinary claim, just like intelligent life visiting earth, so why do we subscribe positively to that theory when there is no conclusive evidence for it?

1. We see circumstantial evidence to support the theory.
2. We "eyewitness" objects in space moving away from what appears to be a central point and arrive at a conclusion that the event may have happened.
3. a few other factors (e.g. COBE) makes the theory plausible.

Even in your own words we have physical evidence (that can be examined and tested repeatedly) and that evidence makes the theory plausible. That is why it is reasonable to accept that it is at least a close approximation of what actually happened.

For alien visitation we have nothing but anecdotal claims that can not be tested or verified. Even the most compelling testimony only supports the conclusion that something unexplained happened because we have no way to determine if it was a mirage, a hoax, pareidolia, military experiments, aliens, time travelers, pixies, or leprechauns. It is not rational to pick aliens as the most likely when the "evidence" doesn't rule out more common explanations.

(12-09-2015 08:17 AM)Free Wrote:  Most here agree alien visitation is possible, but some have it extremely remote, while others such as myself find it far more possible.

It's simply a matter of the level of possibility 1 - 100 %

I suspect you may be overstating the case for most people here. In order to agree that alien visitation is possible you have to assume
a. that other life exists in the universe (unknown but not an unreasonable conjecture given our current understanding)
b. that that life is intelligent (unquantifiable how severely this reduces the number)
c. that they have technology superior to ours (also unquantifiable)
d. that they have found a way around FTL limitations (apparently impossible) or are able to sustain long voyages (unquantifiable)
e. that they detected us or happened to stumble over us (unquantifiable)
f. that they are interested in exploring but apparently not in contact (unquantifiable)

By the time you multiply all the assumptions, even giving generous estimates despite lack of evidence for any of them and evidence against some, I come to the conclusion that a 1% chance is way too high of an estimate of the possibility. The most generous conclusion I can come to is that I can't show that it is known to be impossible.

All the eyewitnesses in the world who claim they saw something that they didn't recognize does nothing to help determine what it actually was.

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
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
12-09-2015, 09:17 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
This thread, just like the last one on this idiocy, amuses me because even though both times the people arguing for alias visitation were so adamant, so full of conviction, that their view was scientifically sound, rational, and evidence based........still knew enough to post it in the pseudo-science and conspiracy section of the forum. Not the science section. Not the world news section. Not any other section of the forum. Right to the bullshit science and crazy asshole story time section of the forum.

It made me chuckle last time and it makes me chuckle this time.

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
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
12-09-2015, 09:19 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(12-09-2015 09:13 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(12-09-2015 09:09 AM)Free Wrote:  The answers are in the case file.

Therefore, like a young earth creationist, you should go study up on it before you open your fucking mouth and look like an uneducated disingenuous prick.

Drinking Beverage

Your dick is in your mouth Rolleyes You have failed to answer a single question, all of which have been reasonable. You have such great faith yet you become defensive as soon as you're challenged. One of us is being a disingenuous prick here and it ain't me.

No, I refuse your questions because they reek of disingenuity. Therefore, go read the case file; study the subject, and get the answers you want if you want to convince me that you are actually sincere.

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
12-09-2015, 09:27 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(12-09-2015 09:06 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(12-09-2015 08:40 AM)Free Wrote:  The Big Bang can be viewed as an extraordinary claim, just like intelligent life visiting earth, so why do we subscribe positively to that theory when there is no conclusive evidence for it?

Because there is conclusive evidence for it. You said it yourself: we see many different things which line up perfectly with predictions made by the Big Bang theory.

You don't understand what "evidence" means.

(12-09-2015 08:40 AM)Free Wrote:  These very same people who view the intelligent alien visitation situation with such extreme skepticism absolutely can be compared to a young earth creationist because of the following:

1. They have no education.
2. They haven't studied.
3. Their arguments are designed to debunk, not to find the truth.
4. They are demonstrably intellectually dishonest.
5. They are demonstrably logically fallacious, pointed out numerous times.
6. They deny evidence when the argument for the evidence is obvious.

Ha.

Adey, you're quite right in pointing out that this isn't a discussion any more. It was never a discussion to begin with, really, since Free is not interested in discussing anything; he has his preconceived conclusions and refuses to examine them honestly, so from the very beginning this has just been a series of rather more intelligent people taking it in turn to smack down his idiotic notions of what "evidence" means and what makes a rational argument.

Literally everything on his list - except, perhaps, the first, but an education is unfortunately no substitute for actual intellectual honesty - is an accurate description of Free's actions in this thread, not his opponents'. Even the briefest of glances through the preceding pages will demonstrate this.

He hasn't studied anything. What he has done is go into matters with a preconceived idea of what he wants to be true, then cherry-picked examples and implemented a blatant double standard regarding what evidence he allows as support of his position versus what he allows as evidence against it.

He is not interested in finding the truth. He is interested in trying to rationalize baseless speculation and non sequitur reasoning to support his pet theory, as demonstrated by his recent demand that we "move on" from the obviously unimportant idea of establishing that any of this is actually true, and instead focus on talking about where his posited magical spaceships could have come from.

He is demonstrably dishonest both intellectually and otherwise. He bends over backwards to attempt to establish anecdotes as evidence in favor of alien visitation, while rejecting actual verifiable fact regarding both the fallibility of human perception and the way both courts and scientific examination handle anecdotes. Beyond that, he lies constantly about his position, retreating to "I'm just saying it's possible" whenever confronted with reality, despite the fact that he is plainly arguing for the reality of the situation, not merely its potential.

One could practically write a textbook on logical fallacies based entirely on Free's arguments here. He has no understanding of logic or rationality, and simply blunders about accusing others of fallacies when he plainly doesn't understand what they mean, or even grasp what the argument he's trying to declare fallacious actually says.

And he hand-waves away the mountains of evidence that eyewitness testimony, even that given by "experts" and en masse, is demonstrably unreliable and not acceptable as the basis for an argument like the one he is trying to make. Beyond that, he pays no attention to those who have shown that even those professionally trained in aviation frequently misidentify aircraft, and even goes so far as to try and submit actual courtroom law as proof that eyewitness testimony is enough evidence to get a conviction when the page he links to says the exact opposite.

So yes. This is no longer a discussion. It hasn't been for a long time. And that is, in fact, all down to Free's own behavior.

He's an idiot. He's a nutter. And he's a liar to boot.

You can't hold a conversation with someone like that.

Wow now I'm well out of my depth I wish I was as smart as all of you guys but I'm not I wish you guys on either side (coz I don't look at it in terms of good v evil) all the best the only thing ill say is that this is pointless and all of you would be better off using your undoubted talents and energy in other directions eg against the religious loons who do such huge damage to the world. Good luck guys
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2015, 09:31 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(12-09-2015 09:27 AM)adey67 Wrote:  the only thing ill say is that this is pointless and all of you would be better off using your undoubted talents and energy in other directions eg against the religious loons who do such huge damage to the world.

It is quite possible to deal with more than one thread at a time.

"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
12-09-2015, 09:38 AM (This post was last modified: 12-09-2015 10:50 AM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(12-09-2015 09:15 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(12-09-2015 08:40 AM)Free Wrote:  Many here, including myself, subscribe to the Big Bang theory as being plausible. Why?

We see circumstantial evidence to support the theory. We "eyewitness" objects in space moving away from what appears to be a central point and arrive at a conclusion that the event may have happened.

But where's the singularity? We don't have it. We have absolutely no concrete evidence at all for a Big Bang, but the circumstantial "eyewitness" evidence of things moving away from a central point, and a few other factors makes the theory plausible.

The Big Bang can be viewed as an extraordinary claim, just like intelligent life visiting earth, so why do we subscribe positively to that theory when there is no conclusive evidence for it?

1. We see circumstantial evidence to support the theory.
2. We "eyewitness" objects in space moving away from what appears to be a central point and arrive at a conclusion that the event may have happened.
3. a few other factors (e.g. COBE) makes the theory plausible.

Even in your own words we have physical evidence (that can be examined and tested repeatedly) and that evidence makes the theory plausible. That is why it is reasonable to accept that it is at least a close approximation of what actually happened.

Agreed, and why I subscribe to it, for the most part.

Quote:For alien visitation we have nothing but anecdotal claims that can not be tested or verified.

Not in this case. We have transcripts and evidence of a cover-up as exposed by the Chicago Tribune. We actually have government documents attesting to this case. We have tower controllers telling incoming pilots to be careful to avoid the UFO. We have a video of a pilot 30,000 feet above eye-balling the UFO and complaining about it.

Quote:Even the most compelling testimony only supports the conclusion that something unexplained happened because we have no way to determine if it was a mirage, a hoax, pareidolia, military experiments, aliens, time travelers, pixies, or leprechauns. It is not rational to pick aliens as the most likely when the "evidence" doesn't rule out more common explanations.

Consider the evidence I listed above. None of the 12 described the object as being anything but an aircraft. It was seen from above, below, from the side, and from various distances. Initial reports had a couple of other people identifying the aircraft as possibly being a balloon, but they weren't at all sure of that. It could look somewhat like a balloon if it was saucer shaped I suppose. Problem with that is the performance issue.

Quote:
(12-09-2015 08:17 AM)Free Wrote:  Most here agree alien visitation is possible, but some have it extremely remote, while others such as myself find it far more possible.

It's simply a matter of the level of possibility 1 - 100 %

[quote]I suspect you may be overstating the case for most people here. In order to agree that alien visitation is possible you have to assume
b. that that life is intelligent (unquantifiable how severely this reduces the number)
c. that they have technology superior to ours (also unquantifiable)
d. that they have found a way around FTL limitations (apparently impossible) or are able to sustain long voyages (unquantifiable)
e. that they detected us or happened to stumble over us (unquantifiable)
f. that they are interested in exploring but apparently not in contact (unquantifiable)

Those yes, and other possibilities also exist.

Quote:By the time you multiply all the assumptions, even giving generous estimates despite lack of evidence for any of them and evidence against some, I come to the conclusion that a 1% chance is way too high of an estimate of the possibility. The most generous conclusion I can come to is that I can't show that it is known to be impossible.

There are only 2 options:

1. Possible.
2. Impossible.

Even if you chose to be agnostic about it, you must still acknowledge those two possibilities.


Quote:All the eyewitnesses in the world who claim they saw something that they didn't recognize does nothing to help determine what it actually was.

Absolutely true, and why my point keeps going back to 12 credible witnesses.

There has never been a case quite like this one. Ever.

This is a sighting in broad daylight involving 12 credible witnesses- and dozens more,- a proven conspiracy to withhold information from the american public, an invasion of american airspace, threats of dismissal if anyone talked, government transcripts, and a video confirmation.

So what the fuck do we do with 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
12-09-2015, 09:40 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(12-09-2015 09:31 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(12-09-2015 09:27 AM)adey67 Wrote:  the only thing ill say is that this is pointless and all of you would be better off using your undoubted talents and energy in other directions eg against the religious loons who do such huge damage to the world.

It is quite possible to deal with more than one thread at a time.
No offence intended and point taken my friend
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2015, 10:43 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(12-09-2015 09:17 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  This thread, just like the last one on this idiocy, amuses me because even though both times the people arguing for alias visitation were so adamant, so full of conviction, that their view was scientifically sound, rational, and evidence based........still knew enough to post it in the pseudo-science and conspiracy section of the forum. Not the science section. Not the world news section. Not any other section of the forum. Right to the bullshit science and crazy asshole story time section of the forum.

It made me chuckle last time and it makes me chuckle this time.

It's rightfully placed because the section also encourages threads involving Skepticism.

The UFO situation definitely belongs in the Skepticism category.

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
12-09-2015, 10:51 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(12-09-2015 09:19 AM)Free Wrote:  
(12-09-2015 09:13 AM)morondog Wrote:  Your dick is in your mouth Rolleyes You have failed to answer a single question, all of which have been reasonable. You have such great faith yet you become defensive as soon as you're challenged. One of us is being a disingenuous prick here and it ain't me.

No, I refuse your questions because they reek of disingenuity. Therefore, go read the case file; study the subject, and get the answers you want if you want to convince me that you are actually sincere.

Drinking Beverage

Yeah, because asking how a human being using nothing more than their eyes can possibly decide that
a. an object is 35 ft in diameter, having never seen such an object before and with the object being in the sky, where there are no reference points
b. the object achieved *orbit* in 2 seconds, when the human eye typically can't see jumbo jets (much longer than 35 ft) at their cruising altitude, which is *significantly* below orbit,

"reeks" positively *reeks* or disingenuity, whereas advising the asker to go read some report "for themselves" and "study the subject", instead of y'know, posting an answer, is the absolute *epitomy* of sincerity.

You win, Free, aliens *did* visit Earth, based on your exceptional analysis. Also they were greeted by bigfoot and confirmed that Jesus is Lord.

PS: I don't give a flying fuck about "convincing you that I'm sincere". I do give a flying fuck about evidence, which you haven't got.

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
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: