UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-09-2015, 05:23 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(13-09-2015 08:48 AM)Free Wrote:  
(13-09-2015 08:38 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Free

I'm not really sure of your position.

Do you believe that aliens have visited earth? Or do you just think aliens are the most likely explanation for some particular UFO sightings (in other words, is it merely your guess that aliens have visited, while you admit to uncertainty)?

Well now, I am surprised that someone has actually noticed what my position in all this actually is.

I recognized your statement that you were addressing the possibility from the get-go.

Quote:I believe that it is possible that aliens have either visited earth,

Just that it's unlikely.

Quote:or that what we consider to be aliens have always existed right here on earth.

That crosses the line into ridiculous. An intelligent species with advanced technology that we have no evidence for?
Where are they hiding? Atlantis? Shangri La? Consider

Quote:In regards to virtually 99% of UFO sightings, they can be dismissed with an explanation grounded within our own known reality. Of the other 1%, even most of those leave at least some room for an earthly explanation, although we cannot say for sure.

But once in a while an event occurs, such as the topic here, that defies all earthly explanation to the extreme, and it is cases like this one that allow us to reason as to the possibility of alien visitation.

In over 30 years of me investigating these UFO sightings, I have been able to debunk virtually all I have looked at, including one other high profile event known as the Rendlesham UFO Incident.

But this one? Nobody has ever come close to making a single dent in debunking this incident.

Do you mean that some events actually occurred, or that the explanation is aliens?

Quote:Something happened here, and it was something so extraordinary as to perplex even the best UFO debunkers on earth.

How about the zillion other things that it might be?

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
13-09-2015, 05:24 PM (This post was last modified: 13-09-2015 05:32 PM by Chas.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(13-09-2015 09:11 AM)Free Wrote:  
(13-09-2015 09:05 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Fair enough, I just wanted to make sure you didn't hold the position that alien visitation, and alien inhabitance were the only possibilities.

Why not just leave the unexplained as unexplained? Sure, I will admit that for all I know, it's possible it was aliens, but until we know it was aliens, I'll just leave it at unexplained. If you also take this position, then I don't understand what all of the fuss is about.

Well this is a discussion in the Skepticism section on the forum. I expect to see some honest scepticism from these people, but in many posts there isn't any.

The one thing that people in this thread haven't considered is this:

Nobody on this thread has made a single dent in the claim that 12 witnesses, highly experienced with aircraft, identified an aerial object as being an aircraft of unknown origin hovering over Gate C 17 at Chicago O'Hare Airport on Nov 7, 2006.

All anyone here has done to that claim is throw assertions at it, with unsupported claims of what else it could be. Nobody has provided a single stitch of evidence whatsoever to help debunk that claim.

And those are the facts here.

Several have pointed out known facts about the fallibility of human perception and interpretation.

And the observed cloud phenomenon is more simply explained as a natural phenomenon.

That dents it.

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
13-09-2015, 07:16 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(13-09-2015 05:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(13-09-2015 05:02 PM)Free Wrote:  Ummm .. what part of 12 people all experiencing the same thing, in the same location, at the same time, does not apply to my case? Facepalm

Because that isn't what the quote is about. It is about the claim being verifiable.

This is not complicated.

And once again you are equivocating disingenuously.

Chas told you himself right here that he recognized that what I have been stating from the "get-go" was all about possibilities.

So NO, this has NEVER been about the claim being "verifiable," for it has been obvious from the" get-go" to pretty much everybody that my position has always been about "evidence" to support the truth claim.

Get it?

Nobody thinks I am saying anything to the effect that the 12 witness VERIFY that it was an aircraft with 100% certainty, but only that because all 12 are credible professionals in the aircraft industry their combined corroborating testimonies exponentially increase BELIEF in their claims.

Obviously this is too complicated for you to understand.


Quote:
(13-09-2015 05:02 PM)Free Wrote:  Who the fuck is talking about two people seeing Big Foot? Are you trying again to make yet ANOTHER false comparison by posting some completely unrelated, incomparible hypothetical scenario to an event that actually happened?

You seem to like the words "false comparison".

You also don't seem to understand what they mean, because this is not one. Even if it were a completely hypothetical scenario - which it isn't, as there are as many Bigfoot believers out there with just as much evidence (i.e. none) to back up their claims of observation - it would still be a valid analogy.

2 people verses 12 is a valid analogy?

No. Not even close. You need something like 12 professionals out in the woods, spread apart and looking from different directions at a Bigfoot within a distance of 150 feet to make this comparison.

You can't even muster up a proper hypothetical scenario for fuck sakes, so how the fuck do you think you have any kind of a point here?

Quote:Naming off fallacies at random when they don't apply to your opponent's argument doesn't help your case. It doesn't make you sound knowledgeable. It doesn't make your arguments any more compelling.

They fucking apply dude. I keep demonstrating them over and over, just as I have done in this very post with you not being capable of even putting a hypothetical scenario together to make a fair comparison.

Quote:
(13-09-2015 05:02 PM)Free Wrote:  Even if I allow your stupid comparison to stand, if 12 people, all zoologists, happened upon a Bigfoot while not expecting to see it, testified as to what they saw, and each testimony was corroborated with each other, it exponentially increases [b]BELIEF in the truth of their claims.[/b]

No, it doesn't - or, rather, it shouldn't if the listener intends to be rational about things. Not unless they can produce actual evidence.

It should indeed. It doesn't "verify" the existence of Bigfoot, but their combined corroborated testimony most certainly increases the level of belief in what they say. That's the way it works in all things.

1 verse 1 = "It's only his word against mine."

12 verses You = "Uh-oh! You're fucked."

The absolute truth will never be determined by the testimonies of the 12 witness, for the only thing left to do is to decide whether or not you, me, or anybody else chooses to believe them.

If only 1 of them said he saw it, I wouldn't bat an eye. Even two wouldn't do much for me. But when you get 5 or 6 professionals, I take notice.

We have 12, and dozens more.

Quote:Of course, you are free to be as irrational as you like.

Nothing irrational about what I am saying, but I suspect it would appear that way to you because you seem to live a life of irrationality

Quote:
(13-09-2015 05:02 PM)Free Wrote:  Are you really the type of guy who believes that- when 12 expert witnesses who all agree on something, and provide an opinion on it which can be corroborated between them- it does not increase the possibility that they may be telling the truth?

No. Because it doesn't.

Take, for example, stage magic. Stage magicians go to one another's shows all the time, and are as close to "expert witnesses" as you will ever find on any subject, as their entire job is to spot ways to artfully disguise the truth and to see through others' disguises.

They still fool one another all the time.

And this is entirely without getting into the possibilities of priming, preconceived biases - which, yes, at least one of those "expert witnesses" likely had prior to the event, and the rest of which likely gained over the course of events due to the aforementioned priming - and so forth.

An assertion without evidence, but I am "rational" enough to recognize it as "possible." Problem is, can't find a clue to demonstrate any of that.

Quote:People can be wrong. People are wrong, all the time, no matter whether or not they are trained in the area in which they are wrong. Anecdotes are not evidence, no matter how many people are involved or how many doctorates they hold.

Wrong. It has been explained to you repeatedly that anecdotal evidence is evidence to support the claim of truth.

But you just don't understand this and obviously you never will.

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
13-09-2015, 07:31 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(13-09-2015 05:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-09-2015 09:11 AM)Free Wrote:  Well this is a discussion in the Skepticism section on the forum. I expect to see some honest scepticism from these people, but in many posts there isn't any.

The one thing that people in this thread haven't considered is this:

Nobody on this thread has made a single dent in the claim that 12 witnesses, highly experienced with aircraft, identified an aerial object as being an aircraft of unknown origin hovering over Gate C 17 at Chicago O'Hare Airport on Nov 7, 2006.

All anyone here has done to that claim is throw assertions at it, with unsupported claims of what else it could be. Nobody has provided a single stitch of evidence whatsoever to help debunk that claim.

And those are the facts here.

Several have pointed out known facts about the fallibility of human perception and interpretation.

And the observed cloud phenomenon is more simply explained as a natural phenomenon.

That dents it.

Yes, several have pointed that out, but none have demonstrated within reason or with a legitimate comparison how 12 credible witnesses, proficient at identifying various aircraft, could identify something as an aircraft from several different vantage points and distances.

The problem here, Chas, is that this particular event is so unique that there simply isn't anything that can be compared to it.

Yes, I have seen all the cloud formation information online, but this is more than just information about 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
13-09-2015, 07:49 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(13-09-2015 05:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-09-2015 08:48 AM)Free Wrote:  Well now, I am surprised that someone has actually noticed what my position in all this actually is.

I recognized your statement that you were addressing the possibility from the get-go.

Thank you.

Quote:
Quote:I believe that it is possible that aliens have either visited earth,

Just that it's unlikely.

Agreed, but not impossible in my view.

Quote:
Quote:or that what we consider to be aliens have always existed right here on earth.

That crosses the line into ridiculous. An intelligent species with advanced technology that we have no evidence for?
Where are they hiding? Atlantis? Shangri La? Consider

Not sure why this is any more "ridiculous" than how you and others view the concept of interstellar aliens visiting earth.

If another animal evolved on earth that was more intelligent than we are, they could have evolved into a technologically superior species millions of years ago.

As humans, we tend to think we can understand intelligence, and also tend to assign a level of intelligence to all creatures around us, as if we actually are correct in doing so.

We tend to compare other species on earth to ourselves, and even humanize them all to some degree.

But the reality here Chas is we don't even understand how our dog thinks, or how he perceives things. We can't even have a good conversation with another species yet, aside from commands to our dogs, or sign language with apes.

So can we fairly think that an advanced intellectual species also living on earth would perceive and understand things even remotely similar to the human equation?

My point here is that, from your perspective, you are humanizing how another species would think they had to "hide" from us in some effort to qualify your position that it is ridiculous for another intelligent species to be living on our planet.

We do not know anything about such a species, which is true, but we also don't know anything about other species we constantly discover on a regular basis either ... until we do discover them.

Yes, it's a long shot, but it's certainly a shorter distance than interstellar travel, and with new species being discovered regularly, I don't think it's ridiculous at all.

I actually find it more plausible than interstellar aliens.

Quote:
Quote:In regards to virtually 99% of UFO sightings, they can be dismissed with an explanation grounded within our own known reality. Of the other 1%, even most of those leave at least some room for an earthly explanation, although we cannot say for sure.

But once in a while an event occurs, such as the topic here, that defies all earthly explanation to the extreme, and it is cases like this one that allow us to reason as to the possibility of alien visitation.

In over 30 years of me investigating these UFO sightings, I have been able to debunk virtually all I have looked at, including one other high profile event known as the Rendlesham UFO Incident.

But this one? Nobody has ever come close to making a single dent in debunking this incident.

Do you mean that some events actually occurred, or that the explanation is aliens?

Just that the event occurred as I described it. The alien postulation is actually merely a side point.

Quote:
Quote:Something happened here, and it was something so extraordinary as to perplex even the best UFO debunkers on earth.

How about the zillion other things that it might be?

Okay, start listing them and see if they fit the claim.

I already did this, and ran out of things that could even come within a breath of "It was an aircraft that they could not identify."

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
13-09-2015, 07:55 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(13-09-2015 05:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-09-2015 07:49 AM)Free Wrote:  Can you demonstrate and explain how and why this is a matter for scientific inquiry? I would like an explanation as to why you keep insisting on this.

You are making assertions and speculations and drawing conclusions about the universe and reality. What else would you use? Revelation? Faith?

I have always maintained that I do not know if it was aliens or not, but only stating that as a possibility. Don't forget that my # 1 choice in possibilities is a man-made vehicle of some sort.

Also, even if I use the possibility of some non human intelligence at work here, we can't even say that they are from anywhere else in the universe.

Quote:This is not a matter for a court of law, and continuing to use legal evidentiary standards is wholly inappropriate.

If this case was viewed as a conspiracy to withhold information about a possible invasion of American airspace by an unknown and unidentifiable aircraft, it has nothing to do with science. That is a legal issue.

It would, if we could demonstrate interstellar aliens. But that's just a possibility.

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
13-09-2015, 07:57 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(13-09-2015 07:16 PM)Free Wrote:  And once again you are equivocating disingenuously.

No, I'm not.

You don't understand what that word means.

(13-09-2015 07:16 PM)Free Wrote:  Chas told you himself right here that he recognized that what I have been stating from the "get-go" was all about possibilities.

So NO, this has NEVER been about the claim being "verifiable," for it has been obvious from the" get-go" to pretty much everybody that my position has always been about "evidence" to support the truth claim.

Get it?

Oh, trust me. I understand perfectly. You're still lying through your teeth, and still wrong.

Once again, no one cares if you want to assert that it's "possible" that aliens have visited Earth in the past (though, again, this is also a rather silly argument to make). That isn't the issue in hand. What we care about is your assertion that "aliens did it" is a rational explanation for the specific instances you cite. It is not, and your attempt to retreat to "I'm only saying it's possible" whenever someone points this out is both disingenuous and rather pathetic.

It is what others have labeled a motte-and-bailey argument. It is inherently dishonest and not particularly compelling.

(13-09-2015 07:16 PM)Free Wrote:  Nobody thinks I am saying anything to the effect that the 12 witness VERIFY that it was an aircraft with 100% certainty, but only that because all 12 are credible professionals in the aircraft industry their combined corroborating testimonies exponentially increase BELIEF in their claims.

Obviously this is too complicated for you to understand.

No, I understand it. It is just wrong.

Anecdotes are not evidence. Assuming that one is being rational, they should not alter one's degree of belief in whether a given proposition is true or not.

You, on the other hand, obviously aren't bothered with being rational.

(13-09-2015 07:16 PM)Free Wrote:  2 people verses 12 is a valid analogy?

Yes.

The fact that you don't like this doesn't make it any less true.

(13-09-2015 07:16 PM)Free Wrote:  No. Not even close. You need something like 12 professionals out in the woods, spread apart and looking from different directions at a Bigfoot within a distance of 150 feet to make this comparison.

And this is why you shouldn't attempt to fisk. You are very, very bad at it. I came up with that scenario in an earlier post.

But it remains irrelevant, since the number of witnesses, and the number of degrees they possess, is irrelevant to whether or not their claims are likely to be accurate.

(13-09-2015 07:16 PM)Free Wrote:  It should indeed. It doesn't "verify" the existence of Bigfoot, but their combined corroborated testimony most certainly increases the level of belief in what they say. That's the way it works in all things.

Perhaps if you are a very silly, irrational person, yes.

(13-09-2015 07:16 PM)Free Wrote:  We have 12, and dozens more.

So does Bigfoot.

(13-09-2015 07:16 PM)Free Wrote:  Wrong. It has been explained to you repeatedly that anecdotal evidence is evidence to support the claim of truth.

And again, this is utterly incoherent and meaningless. Either you are saying that anecdotes are evidence that the person telling it believes something, which is probably true, but trivial and irrelevant, or you are saying that...

...Well. I have no idea what else you could be saying, really, but with how nonsensical everything else you've posted in this thread has been, that isn't really surprising.

"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
13-09-2015, 08:01 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(13-09-2015 07:57 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(13-09-2015 07:16 PM)Free Wrote:  And once again you are equivocating disingenuously.

No, I'm not.

You don't understand what that word means.

(13-09-2015 07:16 PM)Free Wrote:  Chas told you himself right here that he recognized that what I have been stating from the "get-go" was all about possibilities.

So NO, this has NEVER been about the claim being "verifiable," for it has been obvious from the" get-go" to pretty much everybody that my position has always been about "evidence" to support the truth claim.

Get it?

Oh, trust me. I understand perfectly. You're still lying through your teeth, and still wrong.

Once again, no one cares if you want to assert that it's "possible" that aliens have visited Earth in the past (though, again, this is also a rather silly argument to make). That isn't the issue in hand. What we care about is your assertion that "aliens did it" is a rational explanation for the specific instances you cite. It is not, and your attempt to retreat to "I'm only saying it's possible" whenever someone points this out is both disingenuous and rather pathetic.

It is what others have labeled a motte-and-bailey argument. It is inherently dishonest and not particularly compelling.

(13-09-2015 07:16 PM)Free Wrote:  Nobody thinks I am saying anything to the effect that the 12 witness VERIFY that it was an aircraft with 100% certainty, but only that because all 12 are credible professionals in the aircraft industry their combined corroborating testimonies exponentially increase BELIEF in their claims.

Obviously this is too complicated for you to understand.

No, I understand it. It is just wrong.

Anecdotes are not evidence. Assuming that one is being rational, they should not alter one's degree of belief in whether a given proposition is true or not.

You, on the other hand, obviously aren't bothered with being rational.

(13-09-2015 07:16 PM)Free Wrote:  2 people verses 12 is a valid analogy?

Yes.

The fact that you don't like this doesn't make it any less true.

(13-09-2015 07:16 PM)Free Wrote:  No. Not even close. You need something like 12 professionals out in the woods, spread apart and looking from different directions at a Bigfoot within a distance of 150 feet to make this comparison.

And this is why you shouldn't attempt to fisk. You are very, very bad at it. I came up with that scenario in an earlier post.

But it remains irrelevant, since the number of witnesses, and the number of degrees they possess, is irrelevant to whether or not their claims are likely to be accurate.

(13-09-2015 07:16 PM)Free Wrote:  It should indeed. It doesn't "verify" the existence of Bigfoot, but their combined corroborated testimony most certainly increases the level of belief in what they say. That's the way it works in all things.

Perhaps if you are a very silly, irrational person, yes.

(13-09-2015 07:16 PM)Free Wrote:  We have 12, and dozens more.

So does Bigfoot.

(13-09-2015 07:16 PM)Free Wrote:  Wrong. It has been explained to you repeatedly that anecdotal evidence is evidence to support the claim of truth.

And again, this is utterly incoherent and meaningless. Either you are saying that anecdotes are evidence that the person telling it believes something, which is probably true, but trivial and irrelevant, or you are saying that...

...Well. I have no idea what else you could be saying, really, but with how nonsensical everything else you've posted in this thread has been, that isn't really surprising.

Yeah okay.

No matter what is said to you, by me or anyone else, you are hopeless at understanding it.

Your ass has been handed to you- literally thrown at you- for the simple reason that it is so full of shit that nobody wants it.

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
13-09-2015, 08:01 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(13-09-2015 07:49 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:That crosses the line into ridiculous. An intelligent species with advanced technology that we have no evidence for?
Where are they hiding? Atlantis? Shangri La? Consider

Not sure why this is any more "ridiculous" than how you and others view the concept of interstellar aliens visiting earth.

You can't see how the idea of a technologically-advanced species existing alongside us on Earth, presumably for at least thousands of years, without anyone noticing might be considered ridiculous?

Where are you posting from? More relevantly, what are you smoking while you do it?

"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
13-09-2015, 08:03 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(13-09-2015 08:01 PM)Free Wrote:  Yeah okay.

No matter what is said to you, by me or anyone else, you are hopeless at understanding it.

Your ass has been handed to you- literally thrown at you- for the simple reason that it is so full of shit that nobody wants it.

Big Grin

Oh, yes. Someone here is certainly making a great fool of themselves.

For some reason, I think it might be the one who thinks that a technologically-advanced, non-human civilization could have existed alongside us on Earth for thousands of years without anyone noticing, and who spends his time making schoolyard insults rather than responding to the points raised.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: