Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[wollery]

Most convincing...

Regardless of the links and experts cited, who makes the more 'compelling' argument(s)?

There are no arguments to compel anyone. There's really no evidence either.

Let me demonstrate;

Believer: I saw something that defies the laws of physics!
Sceptic: Are you sure that's what you saw?
Believer: Yes, and you can't explain it.
Sceptic: No, I can't explain it, but that doesn't mean it's an alien craft.
Believer: Yes it does.
Sceptic: No it doesn't.
Believer: Yes it does.
Sceptic: No it doesn't.
Believer: Yes it does.
Sceptic: No it doesn't.
Believer: Yes it does.
Sceptic: No it doesn't.
Believer: Yes it does.
Sceptic: No it doesn't.

Continue ad nauseam......

The people who believe/know something IS, or those who claim that ALL the witnesses are mistaken...?

False dichotomy.

I don't say that all witnesses are mistaken, I say that all witnesses could be mistaken. It's an important difference.

There could be a witness who is completely and utterly correct, and in no way mistaken, but until there is something more than someone saying, "I saw something that defies the laws of physics/aeronautics/logic, therefore aliens are visiting us" I'll remain sceptical of all claims.

 

[King of the Americas]

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.

I 'might' have been in error, I 'might' have been the subject of a huge, as of yet unclaimed hoax. However, I find these unlikely, or improbable.

Indeed plans CAN appear to turn 'rather' sharply. But I've NEVER seen ANYTHING make a right angle turn at these speeds. And then two of them combining to make a HUGE version of themselves... What I witness, with a companion, defied physics as I understood them.

...and this is not what I want this thread to be about.

 

[Marduk]

I 'might' have been in error.

shall we look at how you were in error in the ancient ufos in art thread or how you were in error for the giants in the bible thread to see whats most likely

also

earlier you said

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..

yet you can't help referring to your sighting over and over

so what is this thread for

are you wrong in your belief
most certainly ?
will you be understanding why anytime soon ?
I wouldn't think so,
are you going to find validation for your experience here
Never

you don't have the depth of character required to see the truth because yours has been made shallow by reading complete rubbish at woo sites with the same level of belief you should be saving for hard science

people like you make great authors, they don't make great scientists.

 

[King of the Americas]

'Individuals' CAN make mistakes = ALL of those throughout History remarking or reporting that they witnessed 'something' zooming around the sky, making impossible turns, or following watchers or toying with chase planes...made the SAME mistake...

ALL of them...average joes, doctors, pilots, elected officials, and even astronauts...

ALL of them are wrong BECAUSE "individuals can 'possibly' be mistaken".

...This is what's not compelling, in my opinion...

 

[King of the Americas]

shall we look at how you were in error in the ancient ufos in art thread or how you were in error for the giants in the bible thread to see whats most likely

also

earlier you said

yet you can't help referring to your sighting over and over

so what is this thread for

are you wrong in your belief
most certainly ?
will you be understanding why anytime soon ?
I wouldn't think so,
are you going to find validation for your experience here
Never

you don't have the depth of character required to see the truth because yours has been made shallow by reading complete rubbish at woo sites with the same level of belief you should be saving for hard science

people like you make great authors, they don't make great scientists.

Marduk,

I respectfully disagree with you interpretation of art. I'll concede you provided some good insight into the Biblical giants, and I thank you for it. Maybe you could enlighten me (in another thread, what Ezekiel was describing).

What can I say, I'm weak. When someone questions me, I tend to answer.

Admittedly, I have been tainted by my own experiences.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I 'might' have been in error, I 'might' have been the subject of a huge, as of yet unclaimed hoax. However, I find these unlikely, or improbable.

Indeed plans CAN appear to turn 'rather' sharply. But I've NEVER seen ANYTHING make a right angle turn at these speeds. And then two of them combining to make a HUGE version of themselves... What I witness, with a companion, defied physics as I understood them.

...and this is not what I want this thread to be about.

OK. But . . . how did you know how far they were away?

 

[arthwollipot]

Then what did you want this thread to be about?

I think the critical issue here is the question of how you know what you say you know.

KotA describes himself as a knower, not a believer. He knows that aircraft do not behave the way whatever he witnessed behaved. But how does he know that the only alternative explanation is an alien spacecraft of some kind? What tests did he perform? What steps did he take to eliminate other possibilities?

See, this is the thing about us skeptics. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as the old saying goes. The claim that we are being visited by aliens is one such extraordinary claims. You'd better be absolutely, positively sure that what you see has no other explanation before coming to the conclusion that there are aliens visiting us. Our standards of evidence appear to be a LOT more rigourous than KotA's. And really, it is all about the evidence. How else does one determine what is true and what is not?

Say I claimed that I have a blue apple sitting on my desk. Would you believe me? I could be simply lying, or mistaking a plastic toy for a real apple. What if I posted a photograph? It could have been photoshopped, or again it could be a plastic toy that I have simply misidentified. What would convince you that I actually have a real, edible blue apple? You are especially skeptical because apples aren't normally blue! If I had said that it was a green apple, it would not have been such an extraordinary claim. But since I said it was blue, you demand better evidence before believing that what I say is the truth.

It's exactly the same with UFOs. Our experience is that no claimed UFO sighting has been definitely proven to be an alien spacecraft. If alien spacecraft were known to be common, we'd be a lot less skeptical about the claim of having seen one. But since they're not, it's an extraordinary claim, and we demand better evidence before believing that they exist.

So how can one claim to know something anyway? I know that the earth is roughly spherical (to a degree of approximation) because it fits the observations - the shape of the earth's shadow on the moon during an eclipse, the way a ship disappears over the horizon mast last, the observations from astronauts, Eratosthenes' measurement of shadows. How do you know that what you saw is an alien spacecraft?

 

[Marduk]

Marduk,
I respectfully disagree with you interpretation of art.

Very arrogant as you admitted that you knew nothing about either renaissance art or the bible at the time, now that you still dont know anything about either subject you are attempting to pretend you still know better than anyone else

please dry that out when youve had some coffee and tell it back to yourself, its quite amusing

Maybe you could enlighten me (in another thread, what Ezekiel was describing).

that doesn't require a thread,
1. find out where Ezekiel was living when he had his vision
2. find out what that location is most famous for
3. compare line by line his vision with that famous thing
you will find a match

What can I say, I'm weak. When someone questions me, I tend to answer.

Admittedly, I have been tainted by my own experiences.

admittedly you have and its very obvious, I also am wowed by the idea of Alien contact, but I have studied those subjects properly to find out the truth. Don't trust someone with an obvious bias and rely on the scientific method and you'll soon start to see how you have been repeatedly conned by authors leading to you being repeatedly ridiculed by the rest of us

when you get it, you can move on, til then youre stuck watching episodes of the x files like theyre a documentary

 

[Brattus]

The ONLY thing I can do with m experience is tell you what it wasn't. I have no definition for what I saw. I have and DO study the sky, the stars, weather patters, and even satellites. Most of my time has been spent behind a pair of tripod mounted binoculars.

Seek and ye shall find.

 

[Ysidro]

How does KoA know he saw extra-terrestrial craft and not terrestrial fairie craft. I protest this obvious anti-fairie bias.

 

[Drewbot]

How does KoA know he saw extra-terrestrial craft and not terrestrial fairie craft. I protest this obvious anti-fairie bias.

It is a known possibility that Bigfoot has the ability to travel interdimensionally, and that Bigfoot also has access to spacecrafts.

Did Bigfoot originate here on earth or deep within Mars? That will answer whether the craft is EXTRA-terrestrial or INTRA-Terrestrial.

See John-Erik Beckjord
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon-Erik_Beckjord

See Neal Burgstahler AKA Historian here at JREF
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3025535&postcount=25

You boys don't seem to have what some would call, an open mind.
In 1975, the previous 4th dimension of TIME, was reassigned by both a consensus of U.C. Berkeley staff and Stephen Hawking, TO EXPLAIN BIGFOOT INVISIBILITY. The Bigfoot as well as dozens of other smaller people, hide in the higher dimensions so they don't get shot by morons with guns. The reason why the government has not told you about it is evidenced by the above posts. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.

Dimension changes occur by modifying the frequency of vibration of free quanta loops, as described in the book, X3. This is information relayed by also invisible aliens, to DVIR. Crop circles are made by aliens, in order to quietly prove that they are here. Bigfoot also quietly proves that he is here and real.

The government did one very famous experiment that delt with invisibility. Residents of Philadelphia and retired U.S. Navy personnel have both verified to me that it happened. It is called the Philadelphia Experiment. Look it up on the internet. They caused a battleship to disappear.

Hollywood is constantly stealing ideas from the Bigfoot, and not giving them credit for it. "Predator" is just one example, except Bigfoot is not a predator. They are benevolent interdimensional people.

Don't forget to take a walk in a dark and remote woods this weekend. If we don't hear from you again, we will assume that you ran into something other than Bigfoot.

I guess what I'm getting at ,is how do you know what you saw was an Extra terrestrial UFO, and not just a Burgstahler Bigfoot Orb?

 

[Cuddles]

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.

Like so many people, you completely misunderstand what skepticism is. Solid hard evidence is skepticism. The fact that people are only people and therefore not capable of being perfectly skeptical in all situations does not change that. A pretty good definition of skepticism is simply "Accepting what the evidence shows.". That's it. So you see, you are not sitting on a fence at all. If you really mean what you say, you are a skeptic.

As for courtesy, that is nothing to do with anything. Being friendly or not in no way affects whether you are skeptical or just blindly believing something.

How does KoA know he saw extra-terrestrial craft and not terrestrial fairie craft. I protest this obvious anti-fairie bias.

Actually, KotA doesn't think he saw an extra-terrestrial craft at all, he believes it was piloted by a terrestrial non-human intelligent race.

 

[King of the Americas]

OK. But . . . how did you know how far they were away?

Well, I have 'some' experience, watching other flying objects that I KNOW the identity of- air shows, the Shuttle re-entering the atmosphere, airliners, and even satellites.

I wouldn't say I 'know' how far away these things were, I'd merely estimate...

 

[Fishstick]

Well, I have 'some' experience, watching other flying objects that I KNOW the identity of- air shows, the Shuttle re-entering the atmosphere, airliners, and even satellites.

I wouldn't say I 'know' how far away these things were, I'd merely estimate...

It's very hard, even for experienced people, to judge an object's speed/size when it's high in the sky because there are no reference points. The chinese lantern sightings make this obvious as well.

 

[King of the Americas]

KotA describes himself as a knower, not a believer. He knows that aircraft do not behave the way whatever he witnessed behaved. But how does he know that the only alternative explanation is an alien spacecraft of some kind? What tests did he perform? What steps did he take to eliminate other possibilities?

See, this is the thing about us skeptics. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as the old saying goes. The claim that we are being visited by aliens is one such extraordinary claims. You'd better be absolutely, positively sure that what you see has no other explanation before coming to the conclusion that there are aliens visiting us. Our standards of evidence appear to be a LOT more rigourous than KotA's. And really, it is all about the evidence. How else does one determine what is true and what is not?

Say I claimed that I have a blue apple sitting on my desk. Would you believe me? I could be simply lying, or mistaking a plastic toy for a real apple. What if I posted a photograph? It could have been photoshopped, or again it could be a plastic toy that I have simply misidentified. What would convince you that I actually have a real, edible blue apple? You are especially skeptical because apples aren't normally blue! If I had said that it was a green apple, it would not have been such an extraordinary claim. But since I said it was blue, you demand better evidence before believing that what I say is the truth.

It's exactly the same with UFOs. Our experience is that no claimed UFO sighting has been definitely proven to be an alien spacecraft. If alien spacecraft were known to be common, we'd be a lot less skeptical about the claim of having seen one. But since they're not, it's an extraordinary claim, and we demand better evidence before believing that they exist.

So how can one claim to know something anyway? I know that the earth is roughly spherical (to a degree of approximation) because it fits the observations - the shape of the earth's shadow on the moon during an eclipse, the way a ship disappears over the horizon mast last, the observations from astronauts, Eratosthenes' measurement of shadows. How do you know that what you saw is an alien spacecraft?

First, what if the claim here wasn't all that extraordinary... My claim isn't that an inter-stellar alien is 'visiting' Earth. The claim is that we aren't the top of the evolutionary ladder, within this solar system, maybe not even on this planet. We have been studied or watched over, like our scientists do other animal species. Evidence of these sky/high originated entities abounds throughout our historical record, and what I have seen matches some of those records.

Is is NOT, to me, an outrageous thing to consider that history is based on 'some' reality, and we've just been misreading the text...

I can re-create the virgin birth. This requires no miracle. I COULD grow you a blue apple, or a pear shaped like Budda if you'd like.

Artificial insemination, blue food dye into the water, and or injected into the branch holding the fruit, and a simple mold that the fruit grows into. 2,000 years ago, this knowledge or ability would have astounded people. But the feats aren't all that amazing, once you know how they are achieved.

O.J. Simpson killed those two people. I KNOW this. In a criminal trail a jury found him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence they were subjected to. Later, in a civil trial he was found responsible for the deaths, because the 'level' of evidence was not the same as in a criminal trial.

I don't KNOW and or can't prove 'alien' craft. I can only say that all the evidence points to the fact that 'we' aren't the top of the evolutionary ladder, here. Apparently, we never have been. And given our inability compared to these things, I'd say proving this in a scientific manner beyond all reasonable doubt, is an unachievable burden of proof and NOT one I would impose...

 

[King of the Americas]

It's very hard, even for experienced people, to judge an object's speed/size when it's high in the sky because there are no reference points. The chinese lantern sightings make this obvious as well.

When and where did I attempt to do either of those things?

I've seen planes turn, by banking. These objects didn't do this. I don't know how big they were, I just know that when they combined, the result was 4 X bigger than the 2 individuals. The outward appearance didn't 'double' when the came together, it quadrupled. That didn't compute.

These things moved, took positions and hovered, made 90 degree angle turns, and 'combined'....

I DON'T know how big they were or what speeds they achieved.

 

[Kahalachan]

I don't know what X is therefore X is whatever the believer wants it to be.

That tends to always be the argument used.

 

[Tapio]

I DON'T know how big they were or what speeds they achieved.

Yet you KNOW that what you saw 'was beyond human capability'.

If something doesn't add up here, it's this.

Regarding the OP, my two cents. IMHO the skeptics are 'winning'. Not in the media, maybe not in the minds of masses, but in reality. They simply have more knowledge/evidence/logic to back their view up. The believers/knowers have only human experience. If we didn't have the amount of knowledge on how unreliable human experience can and will be, maybe the score would be more even.

As it is, however...before reliable evidence is brought forth, I'll keep on expecting to see aliens only in movies. A shame, though...it would be awesome if it were true.

 

[Marduk]

I can only say that all the evidence points to the fact that 'we' aren't the top of the evolutionary ladder, here. Apparently, we never have been. And given our inability compared to these things, I'd say proving this in a scientific manner beyond all reasonable doubt, is an unachievable burden of proof and NOT one I would impose...

your self deluded then, there is no evidence of Aliens in human history, did you forget we went into that in depth and you were unable to provide any evidence at all. You refused to accept all the evidence to the contrary and based that belief on some paintings made during the renaissance which did not show ufos

so you have based that opinion on your belief rather than facts, this makes your belief worthless, you might as well get yourself over to the religion section and attempt to tell people that God has appeared to you and told you hes going to destroy san francisco, what you are saying and what Dani el was saying are on the same level of credibility. This is not a case where anything you have said has swayed anyone, all you have done is made people realise that you have allowed your imagination to rule your life


pretty much everyone here would change their minds in an instant if there was any credible evidence, no one is shooting down your belief because they don't also want to believe. they are shooting down your belief because its fantasy

 

[King of the Americas]

Yet you KNOW that what you saw 'was beyond human capability'.

If something doesn't add up here, it's this.

Regarding the OP, my two cents. IMHO the skeptics are 'winning'. Not in the media, maybe not in the minds of masses, but in reality. They simply have more knowledge/evidence/logic to back their view up. The believers/knowers have only human experience. If we didn't have the amount of knowledge on how unreliable human experience can and will be, maybe the score would be more even.

As it is, however...before reliable evidence is brought forth, I'll keep on expecting to see aliens only in movies. A shame, though...it would be awesome if it were true.

Have you ever been in or seen a t-bone accident?

You're going forward, then WHAMMO! Now you going sideways. This is the ONLY way I know of for a human piloted vehicle to make a 90 degree 'turn'. And it never turns out well for the one that got turned. Humans don't do well through such g-forces...

These things made it look easy.

And when it looked like two WERE going to collide, that just became ONE really large version of themselves.

What planes do 'we' have that can do that?