Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[Akhenaten]

Why do you think aliens have abilities beyond ours rather than thinking that you may not be aware of all that humans are capable of?

What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason,
how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable,
in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god!
the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals . . .

- Bill Shakespeare​

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Bravo, Akhenaten ! So little is beond our grasp, should we choose to extend it.

A.

 

[Rramjet]

No I meant precedes, until you have some evidence you can't proceed and you don't have any evidence do you, if you did you'd post it.

Interesting, you claim science precedes evidence.
Perhaps you could write an article.

see the problem with U.F.Os is they never get past the observation stage. There certainly is no identification,no description no experiemental investigation and can be no theoretical explanation of phenomena when the only evidence of said phenomena is unidentified.

Perhaps you should look at the evidence presented in the “Anybody think there are Aliens (UFO)” thread (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153911) and tell me what you make of that evidence Marduk.

I specifically also reference for your viewing pleasure :

1.( http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)
2. http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent1_Full_400dpi.jpg
http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent2_Full_400dpi.jpg
3. (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/CondonReport.htm)
4.( http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver.html).
5. (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/cometa.htm)

I am interested to know what you make of the evidence presented in those reports/on those sites.

some people might do well to learn what something is before creating straw man arguments about what they think it is

Do you even know what a “Straw Man argument is?

Hey GeeMack – same old abusive self I see. WHAT is your problem guy?

 

[Akhenaten]

Interesting, you claim science precedes evidence.
Perhaps you could write an article.

You have no idea what you have just unleashed. Babylon is about to descend upon you. Ur in a lot of trouble.

 

[Tapio]

Rramjet, as a short interruption on my way to a more indepth reply to your former post, I'd like to comment on your latest post to this thread.

You gave some interesting links, especially the 'Rogue River Sighting' seems quite well compiled (only skimmed through it once, but it raised my interest enough to deserve a thorough reading).

However, I really can not understand why you, or anyone else would bother to bring up any kind of visual references (photos/video/drawing) as 'evidence'. Maybe you're not updated on the equipment we have available, but I can assure you can make up from scratch a picture of whatever you want to and make it so well even the most advanced pros (my brother, for example) couldn't tell if it was real or not.

So whatever you bring forth as evidence, my humble suggestion is it will not consist of, or contain even a single picture. This will only work against your case and make you look like a gullible fool (my impression is you are not one).

Now back to qualia etc...

ETA: Just updated my read on jakesteele's OPd thread where you clearly state having knowledge of image manipulation techniques. Makes me wonder even more...

 

[Marduk]

Interesting, you claim science precedes evidence.
Perhaps you could write an article.

Are you unable to understand plainly written english, if you don't think evidence precedes a hypothesis then thats why you have no credibility
for instance were someone to desire to see if anything you have posted is remotely accurate they would merely need to read it. I have read all of your posts at this forum, seems you only think you know about one subject and your view is completely biased an based on a preconceived belief in alien visitation, this has more to do with you growing up in a period where sci fi is prevalent that growing up in a period where evidence for your claims is
tell me you dont like star trek eh

Perhaps you should look at the evidence presented in the “Anybody think there are Aliens (UFO)” thread (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153911) and tell me what you make of that evidence Marduk.

what evidence, where

I specifically also reference for your viewing pleasure :

1.( http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)
2. http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent1_Full_400dpi.jpg
http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent2_Full_400dpi.jpg
3. (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/CondonReport.htm)
4.( http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver.html).
5. (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/cometa.htm)

I am interested to know what you make of the evidence presented in those reports/on those sites.

what evidence, where, did you mean the hub cap shaped ufo, how clever of those aliens to disguise their ships as everyday objects, their intergalactic flying pie dish was a stroke of genius

Do you even know what a “Straw Man argument is?

yes its where someone makes an invalid assumption and then attempts to use it as evidence that they are correct in their thinking, I am not at all surprised you dont know that, the vast majority of your claims are based on that old tired argument, that you can't see it speaks volumes about your bias and lack of scientific merit. Basically what Akhenaten said is correct, little piggies with straw houses shouldn't taunt wolves with big lungs, or it'll all end in tears (and bacon sandwiches)

 

[King of the Americas]

Why do you think aliens have abilities beyond ours rather than thinking that you may not be aware of all that humans are capable of?

Because I understand that 'we' ARE subject to physical limitations, that include a limited number of g-forces to the human body AND our craft aren't or don't have a play-dough button that allows them to join together with other craft...

 

[Marduk]

Because I understand that 'we' ARE subject to physical limitations, that include a limited number of g-forces to the human body AND our craft aren't or don't have a play-dough button that allows them to join together with other craft...

you have been claiming all along that what you saw wasn't alien

busted,

 

[RoboTimbo]

Because I understand that 'we' ARE subject to physical limitations, that include a limited number of g-forces to the human body AND our craft aren't or don't have a play-dough button that allows them to join together with other craft...

Do you also understand that there are pilotless craft and that you may not be aware of everything there is to know in materials technology?

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, as a short interruption on my way to a more indepth reply to your former post, I'd like to comment on your latest post to this thread.

You gave some interesting links, especially the 'Rogue River Sighting' seems quite well compiled (only skimmed through it once, but it raised my interest enough to deserve a thorough reading).

However, I really can not understand why you, or anyone else would bother to bring up any kind of visual references (photos/video/drawing) as 'evidence'. Maybe you're not updated on the equipment we have available, but I can assure you can make up from scratch a picture of whatever you want to and make it so well even the most advanced pros (my brother, for example) couldn't tell if it was real or not.

Hi Tapio -

The Mcminnville photos have a virtually unassailable provenance. They were studied in the Condon report by (our dearly beloved) Hartmann. The only bone of contention about the two photos is whether or not they were hoaxed using a model of some variety. My aim is to show that it could not have been a model. Even Hartman in Condon concluded as much, but the "skeptics" never let good research get in the way of a bogus theory.

Yeah, the Rogue River page is being updated as we speak, so it will be even more informative soon...

 

[Akhenaten]

Do you also understand that there are pilotless craft and that you may not be aware of everything there is to know in materials technology?

 

[Marduk]

the "skeptics" never let good research get in the way of a bogus theory.

lets turn that around and have a look at it rationally
"the "believers" never let bad research get in the way of a good theory"

ok with you
please carry on

 

[Rramjet]

Are you unable to understand plainly written english, if you don't think evidence precedes a hypothesis then thats why you have no credibility
for instance were someone to desire to see if anything you have posted is remotely accurate they would merely need to read it. I have read all of your posts at this forum, seems you only think you know about one subject and your view is completely biased an based on a preconceived belief in alien visitation, this has more to do with you growing up in a period where sci fi is prevalent that growing up in a period where evidence for your claims is
tell me you dont like star trek eh

Wow! Some rant Marduk! I think you better read over yours and my last posts…carefully this time.

And no, I can honestly say I have never watched Star Trek. Never seen a TV show of it: Never seen a movie of it. I know of it’s existence of course. I have the eyewitness testimony… So…(shrugs)… I never even saw TV until about 1976. I grew up entirely without its insidious influence. I don’t have much time for it now either…

what evidence, where

I cannot help if you refuse to look at then asses the value of the evidence as presented to you.. Not my problem I’m afraid.

did you mean the hub cap shaped ufo, how clever of those aliens to disguise their ships as everyday objects, their intergalactic flying pie dish was a stroke of genius

Ah yes, ridicule. Derision even. How predictable – and yet we have skeptics here who argue that such a thing NEVER occurs (arthwollipot?)

yes its where someone makes an invalid assumption and then attempts to use it as evidence that they are correct in their thinking, I am not at all surprised you dont know that, the vast majority of your claims are based on that old tired argument, that you can't see it speaks volumes about your bias and lack of scientific merit.

If I have made invalid assumptions then you should point to exactly where I did that. Merely stating I did so doesn’t make it true that I did. (oh where are you now arthwollipot?)

Basically what Akhenaten said is correct, little piggies with straw houses shouldn't taunt wolves with big lungs, or it'll all end in tears (and bacon sandwiches)

Is that a threat?
But you’re not the first…GeeMack is doing his best to get thrown out too.

 

[Marduk]

Wow! Some rant Marduk! I think you better read over yours and my last posts…carefully this time.

No I think youre just mixed up with semantics a little
see
rant - To speak or write in an angry or violent manner; rave.
as opposed to what I posted
statement - The act of stating or declaring.

And no, I can honestly say I have never watched Star Trek. Never seen a TV show of it: Never seen a movie of it. I know of it’s existence of course. I have the eyewitness testimony… So…(shrugs)… I never even saw TV until about 1976. I grew up entirely without its insidious influence. I don’t have much time for it now either…

really, at first I thought you have to be lying, but maybe its a symptom of your current mania, that because you havent watched the most popular sci fi program in earths history you are unequipped to deal with sci fi issues, when you see how cardboard the sets are, it may produce a reaction in you called "critical thinking" as it is apparently you are able to suspend disbelief indefinitely because you have not been shown how that suspension of disbelief should only be reserved for very very bad movies.

I cannot help if you refuse to look at then asses the value of the evidence as presented to you.. Not my problem I’m afraid.

It was a thrown hubcap, how much evidence do I need to post to prove that, and nice freudian slip on "assess"

Ah yes, ridicule. Derision even. How predictable – and yet we have skeptics here who argue that such a thing NEVER occurs (arthwollipot?)

you are taking the entirely wrong stance to claim that you think ridicule is predictable, if you cant accept that the vast majority of right thinking people will ridicule your "belief" in the same way they do that of "fairies" or "angels" then theres no helping you. Its not as predictable as much as it is the usual reaction to nonsense stimula

If I have made invalid assumptions then you should point to exactly where I did that. Merely stating I did so doesn’t make it true that I did. (oh where are you now arthwollipot?)

there has never been any solid evidence of extra terrestrials on this planet, that you "believe" there is while at the same time being totally unable to provide any credible evidence at all shows your invalid assumption sits at the very core of your belief. Think about this, you have been championing as real a ufo that looks like a hubcap. that so far is your very best evidence,

Is that a threat?
But you’re not the first…GeeMack is doing his best to get thrown out too.

you will be banned here long before I am, thats not a threat, its a prediction based on the evidence.

 

[GeeMack]

But you’re not the first...GeeMack is doing his best to get thrown out too.

Actually I'm trying to get you to answer a straightforward question, posed in plain English that probably an average sixth grade child would understand. You've misunderstood me. You've avoided, evaded, and misrepresented my question (lied). The relevance? Your wilful ignorance, predictable as it is, actually says much about the UFO phenomenon and the mind set of at least a portion of the knowers and believers who buy into it the way you do.

Care to take another shot at answering the question?

[...] in real numbers, how many of those previously unidentified sky sightings, after they were identified, turned out to be alien space craft? Real numbers, now, not some evasive vague reply belittling skeptics for wrecking your fantasy. Have there been 43 alien space craft identified? 12? 236? Just exactly how many?

 

[King of the Americas]

Do you also understand that there are pilotless craft and that you may not be aware of everything there is to know in materials technology?

Alright, I'll concede that our military DOES (!?) have and deploy super secret "pilotless" vehicles capable of 90 degree angle turns *insert roll eyes icon here*.

But does that also mean that I should 'believe' that we have play-dough craft too?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I know this is almost heresy, but Carl Sagan saying, "Not a shred of evidence." doesn't make the statement true. I'll concede that the evidence in quest is NOT 'proof', and that the evidence is weak, inconsistent, and without a lot of scientific merit. In fact, 'I' would say Sagan is EXACTLY wrong. All that we have are shreds of evidence.

No. All that we have is a bunch of anecdotes.

Anecdotes are not evidence.

 

[Marduk]

But does that also mean that I should 'believe' that we have play-dough craft too?

Right, now we're getting somewhere

why dont we have play dough craft ?

 

[King of the Americas]

you have been claiming all along that what you saw wasn't alien

busted,

Exactly, a non-human, non-alien something...

 

[King of the Americas]

No. All that we have is a bunch of anecdotes.

Anecdotes are not evidence.

It would be more accurate to say that "anecdotes are not proof", but they certainly ARE "evidence".