UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
King of the Americas said:
I've seen this same behavior, lacking evidence for skeptical assertions, but at the same time demanding it of me...double standards abound...

GREAT thread by the way, TONS of information, well done.
Click to expand...

A double standard is a set of principles permitting greater opportunity or liberty to one than to another, I believe you are creating a double standard to a favorable or acceptable double standard

Here is the choice. It was a UFO; or it’s simply a mundane explanation for misidentification, nothing happened at all, some relation to Mass hysteria. Or the witnesses are all telling the truth. For anyone to disbelieve the witnesses just because we feel like it would be unjustified. But for anyone to disbelieve them because they have not produced clear evidence is the only likely scenario, is completely justified. Since there is evidence blimps, and they do fly in the area, and blimps do exist it is up to you to convince all of us that a UfO was the only object that could have been observed The details of the object are not important, we don’t have a UFO to compare with a known blimp. We only suggest the possibility that it could have been a blimp

We can agree it is impossible to rule out every possible explanation, but any skeptical conclusion is only tentative and is a measure of probability. So using a blimp as an example, knowing that blimps could have been in the area and the object may appear similar to a blimp is the alternative explanation. The biggest errors in determining the cause of events is failure to consider alternative explanations. We do not need to rule out every single possible explanation, all that is needed for disbelief is that a witness explanation does not elevate itself to a status of being the most probable.
 
King of the Americas said:
Are you aware of the fact that you just admitted to holding double standards for your assertions and mine?

---

You arrive at conclusions even with "a complete lack of any physical evidence"...well done!
Click to expand...

It's not a double standard. One claim is completely mundane - that it was a blimp OR a cloud OR a kite OR some other natural phenomenon. This requires no evidence, as it is the "default" position by virtue of being the most likely. Your assertion that it was something NOT natural requires evidence.
 
staunch said:
Here is the choice. It was a UFO; or it’s simply a mundane explanation for misidentification, nothing happened at all, some relation to Mass hysteria. Or the witnesses are all telling the truth. For anyone to disbelieve the witnesses just because we feel like it would be unjustified. But for anyone to disbelieve them because they have not produced clear evidence is the only likely scenario, is completely justified. Since there is evidence blimps, and they do fly in the area, and blimps do exist it is up to you to convince all of us that a UfO was the only object that could have been observed The details of the object are not important, we don’t have a UFO to compare with a known blimp. We only suggest the possibility that it could have been a blimp

We can agree it is impossible to rule out every possible explanation, but any skeptical conclusion is only tentative and is a measure of probability. So using a blimp as an example, knowing that blimps could have been in the area and the object may appear similar to a blimp is the alternative explanation. The biggest errors in determining the cause of events is failure to consider alternative explanations. We do not need to rule out every single possible explanation, all that is needed for disbelief is that a witness explanation does not elevate itself to a status of being the most probable.
Click to expand...

Provide the flight plan for the blimp in the area, the pilot and or ground crew, or the tower long that indicated a launch on that day...therein you'll have evidence that it WAS a blimp.

Until then it's an unsubstantiated claim.

Did you read the whole link?
 
King of the Americas said:
Provide the flight plan for the blimp in the area, the pilot and or ground crew, or the tower long that indicated a launch on that day...therein you'll have evidence that it WAS a blimp.

Until then it's an unsubstantiated claim.

Did you read the whole link?
Click to expand...

KotA, again you miss the point entirely. The point isn't that it was specifically a blimp. The point is that it could have been a blimp. It could also have been a weird cloud, or a weather balloon, or a Frisbee. It could have been one of any number of mundane phenomena. It is not a "claim" to say that it wasn't an alien craft. You are the one making the claim: we are providing reasons why your claim is baseless.
Again, you show that you have no idea what is going on here.
 
Pure_Argent said:
It's not a double standard. One claim is completely mundane - that it was a blimp OR a cloud OR a kite OR some other natural phenomenon. This requires no evidence, as it is the "default" position by virtue of being the most likely. Your assertion that it was something NOT natural requires evidence.
Click to expand...

What a load of moo-poo...

Evidence is REQUIRED in order to reach any conclusion.

That you 'think' you don't need any evidentiary support to make a claim IS evidence of your bias...
 
King of the Americas said:
What a load of moo-poo...

Evidence is REQUIRED in order to reach any conclusion.

That you 'think' you don't need any evidentiary support to make a claim IS evidence of your bias...
Click to expand...

No.

Again you miss the point.

There is no reason to believe that it was anything other than a mundane occurrence. So far there have been NO verified reports of alien visitation. Therefore, the chances of there being one are extremely small. So the basic position, without any need for evidence, is that there was no alien visitation. You are the one making the claim that there was; therefore, evidence is required for your claim. All that is required to reassert that it was NOT an alien craft is a plausible explanation for something else that it could have been.
 
Rramjet said:
Well, for example many UFO reports (and you'll have to take my word on it for this post) seem to have a "nuts and bolts" feel to them (they look solid and three dimensional, they are opaque, they physically affect the environment around them) and then they "disappear" or even "fade out". Where did they go? I am loathe to conclude "invisiblity cloak" (although energising themselves to levels beyond our perception is a possibility) but one hypothesis is that they moved into another dimension.

Also...if you are inclined to the ET hypothesis, then BY DEFINITION "they" must be inter-dimensional, because our (current) understanding of physics would seem to preclude direct spatial travel over such vast distances...

So just two examples...
Click to expand...

... of arguing from ignorance and not providing me with what I asked for specifically: criteria which would provide confirming/disconfirming evidence of your hypothesis and a method by which you could potentially falsify these ideas.

None of which you provided.

Better luck next time.

Bye now.

ETA: It's all just leprechauns, Rramjet. Go on, prove me wrong...
 
Last edited:
Rramjet said:
Then I guess you missed the witness testimony stating:

"speed of a jet"
"round in shape" (ie; circular!)
and the size variation between all five witnesses was between 25 and 35 feet!
Click to expand...


Yeah, and I'm sure the speed and size estimates are completely reliable. :rolleyes:
Seriously, have you idea how unreliable eyewitness testimony is? Eyewitnesses are good for "Yes I saw something or someone" and that's about. The instances in which eyewitnesses reliably get details correct is astoundingly low, which is why physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony.

So, in your opinion, how could the eyewitnesses possibly guesstimate the size of a 25-35 foot object unless it was right on top of them? They needed to look at it with binoculars, for chrissakes! So, you'll forgive me if I don't entirely trust the estimate of size, which in turn nullifies any notion of the craft doing the "speed of a jet".
 
Sledge said:
Sorry to keep bringing this up, but if none of the cases are convincing by themselves, why would they be convincing when put alongside other unconvincing evidence?
Click to expand...

Because some people think that if you make an inaccurate claim again, but with even more passion, then that somehow magically makes it accurate :rolleyes:
 
Pure_Argent said:
KotA, again you miss the point entirely. The point isn't that it was specifically a blimp. The point is that it could have been a blimp. It could also have been a weird cloud, or a weather balloon, or a Frisbee. It could have been one of any number of mundane phenomena. It is not a "claim" to say that it wasn't an alien craft. You are the one making the claim: we are providing reasons why your claim is baseless.
Again, you show that you have no idea what is going on here.
Click to expand...

You didn't read the link...

The claim is "based" on the testimony of the witnesses.

YOUR claim however IS entirely "baseless", unless you'd like to provide some evidence...?
 
King of the Americas said:
You didn't read the link...

The claim is "based" on the testimony of the witnesses.

YOUR claim however IS entirely "baseless", unless you'd like to provide some evidence...?
Click to expand...


How many times does it need to be repeated? There was a blimp base nearby. What sort of evidence are you asking for? I think it's safe to say that there would be blimp activity in the area nearby a blimp base? Wouldn't you think? I think that's plausible, but that's me.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Because some people think that if you make an inaccurate claim again, but with even more passion, then that somehow magically makes it accurate :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

See, I try to be nice. I try to assume that people aren't doing what you outlined. Deep down, I suspect it. But I think "No, Sledge. Such cynicism is not a good starting point from which to learn. Ask the person to explain what they've said, you must have misunderstood it." Then they consistently ignore the question, leaving me with the conclusion that not only do they not have any evidence, but they KNOW they don't have any evidence and they're just trying to wind people up. Well fission mucking accomplished, Rramjet. You've forced me to the conclusion that you know nothing.
 
Rramjet said:
...and all you have done is to produce some old photos of something that looks NOTHING like what the witnesses describe.
Click to expand...

Odd how you claim their discriptions are nothing like blimps, yet their drawings from those descriptions look exactly like blimps. They even described the surface being wrinkled at the places where a blimp wrinkles. To mangle a quote, hoofbeats means horses, not zebras and certainly not unicorns, centaurs, pegasi, satyrs, or chimerae, or any other hoofed myths I'm not recalling.

I'm also going to point back to the poster who noted that one cow patty is a bit of manure. A truckload of cow patties doesn't somehow become evidence. It's just a lot of manure.

A
 
apathoid said:
How many times does it need to be repeated? There was a blimp base nearby. What sort of evidence are you asking for? I think it's safe to say that there would be blimp activity in the area nearby a blimp base? Wouldn't you think? I think that's plausible, but that's me.
Click to expand...

Then present the flight plan, tower log, ANYTHING or ANYONE who piloted, manned, or launched the blimp in question...
 
King of the Americas said:
Then present the flight plan, tower log, ANYTHING or ANYONE who piloted, manned, or launched the blimp in question...
Click to expand...

Oh my dear lord jesus h. freaking christ on a crutch being eaten by Cthulhu, you still don't get it!

You are the one making a claim. The burden of proof is on you.

An alternative has been given. You must disprove this alternative. Show that it could not possibly have been a blimp, or you have failed to meet the burden of proof.
 
King of the Americas said:
Then present the flight plan, tower log, ANYTHING or ANYONE who piloted, manned, or launched the blimp in question...
Click to expand...


Somehow, I don't think those records would still be available some 60 years later! But, it's as good a time as any to ask: Would that evidence satisfy you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom