Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[kitakaze]

Hi, Rramjet. I've been loosely following this thread and your ideas about UFO's are interesting to me (though I'm not entirely sure what they are).

So I can better understand where you are coming from, can you please explain to me what you think the UFO's are that you don't think are explainable by known phenomena?

I think the idea of Earth being visited by intelligent beings not of this world/time with advanced craft is fascinating and I would love to see some reliable evidence that would allow me to support the idea.

Bumped just in case it gets missed on the last page.

 

[StevenCalder]

If there would be hard evidence, we wouldn't be discussing it here.

Which I'm fully aware of and not why I made that comment.

I don't have the expertise in your particular field to help with your evidence tho, but I wish you luck in getting something definitive on the table.

 

[Rramjet]

Whew, I must extend my gracious thanks to kitakaze and heed, I was at risk of falling victim to the "ratpacking" diversionary tactics of a few (who shall remain nameless) posters and you have allowed me to refocus my attention back to the issue at hand.

katakaze I will answer your question directly and soon (sorry I know I have stated something like this a couple of times in the last hour or so but you'll have to bear with me, I really DO have to get back to my day job... but in the meanwhile my position broadly reflects that contained in what heed has just posted (nice post heed, succinct and well stated, I appreciate your position) and I will be expanding and expounding on that position, but I really have to go now...

 

[kitakaze]

Whew, I must extend my gracious thanks to kitakaze and heed, I was at risk of falling victim to the "ratpacking" diversionary tactics of a few (who shall remain nameless) posters and you have allowed me to refocus my attention back to the issue at hand.

katakaze I will answer your question directly and soon (sorry I know I have stated something like this a couple of times in the last hour or so but you'll have to bear with me, I really DO have to get back to my day job... but in the meanwhile my position broadly reflects that contained in what heed has just posted (nice post heed, succinct and well stated, I appreciate your position) and I will be expanding and expounding on that position, but I really have to go now...

Thank you for the reply and I look forward to your response detailing your position on UFO's you think can not be explained by known phenomena.

 

[King of the Americas]

lol, nice try, but thats exactly what chimps are if theyre out there flying spaceships

What requires that 'they' be non-native?

 

[kitakaze]

What requires that 'they' be non-native?

KoA, are you of the postion that UFO's not explainable by known phenomena are time travellers?

 

[King of the Americas]

well if you want it to be corroborated them produce your witness, because at the moment I'm quite sure most people here think youre just lying, wouldn't be the first time youve been caught doing it at this forum would it

So, now I'm a liar, if I can't produce my witness 'here'?

And you have evidence that I've lied before...?

...indeed.

 

[kitakaze]

Just a few things to add, heed...

So i really don't understand why a skeptic person not even says "OK, you said you saw a UFO. I don't dismiss the possibility that these are aliens or another foreign intelligence." Where is this third group? In order to adopt an attitude, one should have knowledge about the topic. In this case it means to first have a neutral position and watch what both sides have to say about it.

I am this third group. I detailed my position regarding alien life in the alien thread...

Life elsewhere in the universe - absolutely. Alien spacecraft coming here - not so much.

I have knowledge on the subject and I am more than willing to consider reliable evidence for VEFI.

Now, because the astrophysicists and skeptics i talked to absolutely ignored all of this, i can still show hundreds of papers with radar images. Of course there are cases with radar traces that can be dismissed because of some meterological phenomena, but this is not true for every investigated images. What can be found on these images are flight maneuver of objects in all sizes that cannot be made by any human-made object. These are objects with speeds of more than 6.000 mi/h in zigzac course for minutes and the ability to immediately stop (Some of the objects also have been seen parallel by eye-witnesses like pilots). How do you want to explain this?
Sadly, this information is and can only be obtained in cooperation with military ATC as civilian ATC cannot track speeds of more than Mach 4.

I would like to see if there is a known phenomena explanation for this. Can you please share the information with me so that I might make my own conclusion?

There are many cases where people say the object(s) landed in front of them and beings alight from this vehicle. How do you want to dismiss these cases?

I don't want to dismiss cases that have reliable evidence to support them. Can you direct me to such cases where UFO craft have landed in front of people, beings came out, and reliable evidence was collected for the event? People have claimed to see Bigfoot entering/exiting UFO's. What do you think?

 

[King of the Americas]

Sorry, that's not going to be enough to convince the world.

Lots and lots of people have lots of wild ideas that are supported by loads of anecdotal evidence. Psychics, Faeries, Ghosts, Astral Projection, you name it, there's anecdotal evidence to support it. Perhaps one of these events is true, perhaps its yours, perhaps its astral projection. But if we adjust the evidence threshold for plausibility we either take them all or none of them.

Volume of weak non-confirmatory evidence does not correlate to the reality of the theory the provider of the evidence subscribes to either unfortuantly. If that were true every major religion would be more true than UFO alien origin theories and all of the above combined due to centuries and centuries of culturally acceptable dodgy anecdotes of visions, miracles, god speaking to people, government endorsements, more recently videos of people being "healed", videos of "possession", images of "spirits" and "angels" and "demons" etc etc.

Its going to take more than anecdotes and weak non-confirmatory evidence I'm afraid.

When did I say that my sighting was "scientific proof" that I expected to convince everyone?

 

[Marduk]

So, now I'm a liar, if I can't produce my witness 'here'?

And you have evidence that I've lied before...?

...indeed.

yup, when you claimed several times to several people that there were historians throughout history who had been saying "they are here" and then were completely unable to name any. That was a lie you invented to bolster your belief

then again, when you claimed there were lots of depictions of ufos throughout history, because you refused to accept the facts from experts on those "renaissance" religious paintings that they were depicting god as a cloud. Your refusal to accept the facts and then pretend there werent any was a lie

now youre claiming you again have some supporting evidence for one of your claims
yet so far, youve been unable to produce him



now you just got proven as a liar twice, if you'd like to deny it I will go back and produce your posts in a dedicated thread entitled "the lies of ufo believers" to show everyone how dishonest youve been, so please, make my day, deny it



wheres this going to end King, truth is, it ended ages ago, you just haven't noticed yet

what you don't think those two examples of yours were lies ?
perhaps you should read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

you fabricated and lied by omission didnt you

 

[heed]

odd that with your first post you have made the same incorrect statement as Rramjet

No, i didn't. What's odd is that you completely ignored my first two sentences where i made clear what i am talking about when using the term "UFO".

no sceptic here disputes the existence of UFO's

Most people in this discussion do. If it's easier for you to follow my texts if i use another term for what i am talking about here when we speak about UFOs, please tell me. Else i would like to stay with "UFO" if we can agree upon my definition of UFO.

I don't have the expertise in your particular field to help with your evidence tho, but I wish you luck in getting something definitive on the table.

Of course a hard evidence would clear things up; but the question is, if a hard evidence is still needed to accept that this phenomenon exists.

I think it's not helpful (at least in this discussion) to pick one case and to talk about how reliable it is. There are several reasons, why. For example, it's an utterly exception that the radar images are available on the web. My experience from other discussions is that if i just search for available information on the web (instead of citing the books i have) to substantiate that the cases are reliable, all i will get is: "And that's what you can offer? Some little piece of text? Derisory ..."
Even if the radar images are shown by Illobrand von Ludwiger in an interview[1], the only reaction is (in the comments):

Kann ja sein, das es echt ist. Muss aber nicht.
Gibt es jemanden der diese Aufzeichnungen bestätigt?
Also ich denke, ich könnte so was auch zeichnen.

Translation: "Could be true. But it does not have to be. Is there somebody who can acknowledge this? I think i could draw this too."

Is this evidence reliable?

Short answer: As reliable as radar images and parallel eye-witnesses can be. Of course that's not 100%.

Does it make technology not of our own the only explanation or could it be explained by faulty readings or natural phenomena?

As i said earlier, all i referred to are radar images that exclude natural phenomena after investigation. You can dismiss to track them back to the fact of secret weapons or unknown secret aircrafts. This is why: The gap between measured and observed abilities of these UFOs and what's feasible is just too big. Even if you assume that military technologies are 20 years ahead of the civilian used technologies (this is especially true when you take radar images of the 80s or earlier).


EDIT: Oh dear, i just have seen the "alient implants" thread where i have to scroll a long time to get a posting of someone who does not make a stupid joke about the topic.

A pancake bunny? (With an alien implant, of course.)

It's so lavished with "funny" postings that i am not sure it makes sense to compose a reply.

EDIT2: @kitakaze: Sorry, you have sent your last posting before i finished mine. I will answer yours as soon as i will have the time to.

[1] As i'm not allowed to post URLs yet: Go to YouTube and enter the search term "Radarsichtungen von Ufos in Deutschland". You will find a URL with the ending watch?v=q4bHykjzsqU

 

[Marduk]

Most people in this discussion do.

please provide supporting evidence for this claim
put up or shut up

 

[King of the Americas]

KoA, are you of the postion that UFO's not explainable by known phenomena are time travellers?

No.

From all the research I've done, I find that 'they' have always been 'here', at least as long ago as man could carve on walls. There have been 'things up there' for as long as 'we' have been here.

I've found nothing that requires or leads be to believe they are "aliens", time travelers, or any other such far off thing.

They are as native as we are.

 

[heed]

please provide supporting evidence for this claim
put up or shut up

Are you serious about this?

It isn't about arguments, but about good evidence, which the skeptics don't require, and the believers don't have.

His conclusion...."Not a shred of evidence."

That's the bottom line for those of us who identify as skeptics.

If instead you mean the debate between people who claim aliens are visiting us and skeptics then there is no debate. No-one can win anything because until the believers actually bring some evidence to support their claims there is no debate to win.

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

and so on ...

 

[King of the Americas]

you fabricated and lied by omission didnt you

No, I didn't.

 

[Marduk]

Are you serious about this?





and so on ...

they are all commenting that there is no evidence that UFO's are aliens
everyone here knows that there are unidentified objects in the sky,
now do you want to try supporting your major asertion again, without attempting to use non relevant evidence ?

 

[Marduk]

No, I didn't.

yes you did

 

[Burning Beard]

People have drawn this on cave walls, in paintings, and in every form of media you can possibly imagine.

???

What, like these: http://sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_eng.htm ????

 

[heed]

they are all commenting that there is no evidence that UFO's are aliens
everyone here knows that there are unidentified objects in the sky,
now do you want to try supporting your major asertion again, without attempting to use non relevant evidence ?

You said no skeptic here would dispute the existence of UFOs. I said that's wrong. You said i should shut up or bring evidence for that. I quoted some people who said there is no evidence for UFOs. You are still ignoring what i wrote in my posting:

Let me say this first: When i say "UFO" i am not talking about yet to be identified objects, but about unidentifiable phenomena. Phenomena, which has been declared as unidentifiable after scientific investigation.

And why did you rip out my sentence without quoting the following sentence:

Most people in this discussion do. If it's easier for you to follow my texts if i use another term for what i am talking about here when we speak about UFOs, please tell me. Else i would like to stay with "UFO" if we can agree upon my definition of UFO.

Please don't make this a personal thing. Instead of replying to anything else i wrote all you do is to stick to a term and insinuate that i lied.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

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

No. They are not.

My anecdote of my encounter with an Extraterrestrial creature in a back alley is far from being evidence of anything.

I can provide you more made up anecdotes if you like.