• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

King of the Americas said:
...
"combine to make a 4-fold larger version of themselves."
Click to expand...

Voltron?

But I think your mistake is in thinking that it either must be:

King of the Americas said:
IS there 'something' around/up there/in the heavens that ISN'T us?
OR
Are ALL such reports merely a product of identification error?
Click to expand...

When it really is:
There could be something up there but so far all such reports that can be explained are attributable to identification error and those which are not explained show no evidence of being any different.
 
Last edited:
Hey hey hello. As a sitter upon the fence, I can tell you one definite fact: Sitting on fences hurt.

I choose my fence, because neither side really has anything to do with me. I am a believer in solid hard evidence and courtesy, neither of which are terribly abundant on either side. Skepticism is like communism in that it looks good on paper, but falls apart in practice. I have seen quite a few skeptics using the very tools they denounce and abhor, such as being selective, and using emotional bias. I have seen deliberate misinterpretation and outright mockery. And you guys think the believers are bad. I know I too can be terribly selective at will, but instead of taking a side, I take a search for the truth, which involves sticking quite rigidly to the facts and logical interpretations.I know for a fact that I won't find any of this with a believer too. In short, I know that the believers hate having their toys smashed, and that the skeptics hate having their old oppresor win. And I don't really like the sound of either side. So I choose my fence. I'll pick the side which can show to be the most civil.

KoTA, you really need to make up your own mind. Going to the forum for help really wasn't going to get you anywhere. No one is proferring an argument to you, they are going to lure you with the truth, as that's what the argument is all about. I can only tell you what I know, and I'm not going to bother with anything further.


Most of the people on this forum have been nice and civil and helpful, which I have enjoyed. It is the unfortunate few who have been deeply impolite, who I have seen the worst of. I'll do what everyone is probably dying to do by now, and call myself a hypocrite and say that in fact I have been very selective/stereotypical above. I have, and I apologize for it, but it doesn't justify the actions of those few who I have seen being nasty.
 
BlackKat said:
Voltron?

But I think your mistake is in thinking that it either must be:



When it really is:
There could be something up there but so far all such reports that can be explained are attributable to identification error and those which are not explained show no evidence of being any different.
Click to expand...

That was my second thought, after mutant flubber playdough...

I don't say anything, except that I saw something I have no definition for.
 
King of the Americas said:
So, I want to hear from those "on the fence", those who haven't made up their mind as to which group is 'probably' correct.

IS there 'something' around/up there/in the heavens that ISN'T us?

OR

Are ALL such reports merely a product of identification error?
Click to expand...


This isn't an either/or choice. Human beings are incredible at pattern-seeking and pattern-finding. So much so that they very often see patterns and connections that aren't really there. This is what can turn a flock of ducks flying past a lighted football field into a shape-shifting, erratic space craft.
 
Hokulele said:
This isn't an either/or choice. Human beings are incredible at pattern-seeking and pattern-finding. So much so that they very often see patterns and connections that aren't really there. This is what can turn a flock of ducks flying past a lighted football field into a shape-shifting, erratic space craft.
Click to expand...

Look, I don't want to talk about this instance or that one, and how it could have been swamp gas reflecting off of Venus.

Bigger picture, broader scope...

Are ALL of these accounts misidentifications- skeptics OR poor evidence is still evidence- believers/knowers make the better case?

It IS that simple.
 
Darat said:
I can't think of many things much more exciting than visitors from another world, that we can communicate with and that don't exterminate or enslave us of course.
Click to expand...

I guess an Unclassified, Giant, Hairy, bipedal, primate, running throughout the forests of North America, stomping around tents, running in front of cars, mutilating cattle, making howling sounds in the dark, banging on trees, throwing rocks at people (but never actually hitting them), is not nearly as exciting as Unidentified Vehicles purported to hail from other worlds, carrying infiltrators which specialize in: immobilizing, performing tests, and kidnapping a few of us and, after their anal probes are completed with whatever sick testing function they were programmed to accomplish, returning us to the exact time(+ 2 hours) and place we dissappeared.

Here's the thing that bugs me... why bother returning the test subject? Doubling their risk of being captured or attacked?
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
Are ALL of these accounts misidentifications- skeptics OR poor evidence is still evidence- believers/knowers make the better case?

It IS that simple.
Click to expand...


That is a completely different set of options than you presented in the OP.

Since you insist that my answer be based on the big picture/a broad scope, then I will say that the vast preponderance of cases are misidentifications and therefor the small amount of poor evidence does not make a good case at all. Pretty much the only way believers/knowers can make a good argument is to focus on one of the very few cases which has any evidence at all.

In other words, the pragmatic response is to assume that every case has a non-alien-life cause until any case shows otherwise. As others have said, I would be thrilled to have a case that does so, but there haven't been any yet.
 
Hey King; sup!
Ask yourself this if you will
Is your “knowing” anymore valid than the guy from back in the sixties wrote books about blond space babes from Venus that would abduct him from his farm in Belgium?

And to address your OP; Woo is winning cause it’s sexy and sells air time, not because it’s ture.
 
kedo1981 said:
Hey King; sup!
Ask yourself this if you will
Is your “knowing” anymore valid than the guy from back in the sixties wrote books about blond space babes from Venus that would abduct him from his farm in Belgium?

And to address your OP; Woo is winning cause it’s sexy and sells air time, not because it’s ture.
Click to expand...

I haven't found anything that compares accurately to what I witnessed.

Woo is winning...?

Really?
 
I thought Sagan made another cogent argument in regards to this question. From Roswell onward through the sixties, seventies and eighties, the heart of the Cold War, the military/industrial establishment always had it's hand out for more money and funding.

Presumably, the militaries of all major powers the same. Assuming the military and intelligence services would have had access to the very best information about UFOs, does it not seem surprising that the military would not have been demanding increased funding, research, weaponry, and space capability to counter this unknown and likely existential threat?
But no. The "Space Race" was limited in scope and ideals, and the secret military portion that was embedded within was strictly Cold War oriented; high-tech spy satellites to watch the Soviets, not the skies.
Evidently the military was not overly concerned with the likelyhood of invasion from space.....
 
Drewbot said:
I guess an Unclassified, Giant, Hairy, bipedal, primate, running throughout the forests of North America, stomping around tents, running in front of cars, mutilating cattle, making howling sounds in the dark, banging on trees, throwing rocks at people (but never actually hitting them), is not nearly as exciting as Unidentified Vehicles purported to hail from other worlds, carrying infiltrators which specialize in: immobilizing, performing tests, and kidnapping a few of us and, after their anal probes are completed with whatever sick testing function they were programmed to accomplish, returning us to the exact time(+ 2 hours) and place we dissappeared.

Here's the thing that bugs me... why bother returning the test subject? Doubling their risk of being captured or attacked?
Click to expand...

So you can track migratory patterns?
 
King of the Americas said:
I haven't found anything that compares accurately to what I witnessed.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that what you witnessed might not be accurate.

And while this might not be the thread to get into it in detail just taking the right angle aircraft turns you mentioned. Such an observation is heavily dependent on perception.
 
On Friday night we had a very bright meteor disintegrate over Southern Ontario. A number of people reported that it flew a few hundred feet above their heads. ;)

We might be being visited by aliens from Betelgeuse, or beings from parallel dimensions, or our grandchildren from the future but nothing has been presented to prove anything explainable only by such or similar scenarios.

The fact that saucerists cling so strongly to ufo cases that have been explained by later research and analysis to have (at least possible) mundane explanations is an interesting sociological phenomenon but that's it.
 
'I' think the skeptics' thinking is skewed, and their methodology flawed, in arrival at "debunked claim". I am sure they are equally convinced of 'their' winning the logical argument.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with "Winning" King. It has to do with investigating a certain case, and Using Mundane explanations first to see if the UFO in question has a match.

IS there 'something' around/up there/in the heavens that ISN'T us?
Click to expand...

Yes, they are called Planets and Stars

Are ALL such reports merely a product of identification error?
Click to expand...

No, They are a COMBINATION of Identification errors, Hoaxes, Wishful Thinking, Hysteria. etc
 
King of the Americas said:
Alright, I am just going to respond 'in general', since I DON'T want this thread to get bogged down in another discussion as to what constitutes "scientific evidence/PROOF".
Click to expand...

Given that lies at the very heart of your OP, you've managed to just cripple any useful discussion that could come of this. Why did you bother at all?

I use the terms knowers and believers, because I believe they are in the same camp. 'I' fancy myself a "knower", and not merely a 'believer'. I KNOW that what I saw was beyond human capability. You can believe something 'might' be true, but you don't know until you have 'enough' evidence to reach that conclusion.
Click to expand...

'Enough' is a subjective claim.

We all observe things, and evaluate those observations against a set of criteria. There is no objective way of determining whether an observation is evidence for or against something - but some criteria are more useful at producing consistent, replicable results.

Of course, you're free to use your own set of criteria and claim certainty through it. Nobody can even say those criteria are wrong. But they certainly don't seem to be useful.

In the other camp, we have the skeptics/debunkers.
Click to expand...

Skeptics aren't a single camp.

Some people deny outright the possibility for emotional reasons. Some simply don't accept it because they use a different set of criteria to assess evidence to you.

All that I want to know is, "Who's making the best arguments, so far?"
Click to expand...

Again, what's the point of the question? It's unanswerable without a context, which you've pointedly excluded from the conversation.

Athon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom