- Status
Andrew Wiggin
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 2,915
Oh, look. I saw a blimplike craft just down from the blimp airport. It must have been an alien craft, because when I called the airport demanding they release all their records to me so I would know for sure, they laughed at me. I'm gonna go tell everyone aliens are among us.
A
LOL!
Yes, you're right, I AM contending more... and NOT ET by the way... and NOT "more" for the Rogue River case. I cannot make anything more of that case that "unknown" according to the evidence before me. But we had to start somewhere... and that was a case that was already being discussed so it was just a carryover...
I am still not convinced that anyone actually read through that research by the way... only Tapio indicated he had... and I admire him for that and congratulate him for at least looking at the evidence - even though his mind was already (I suspect and correct me if I am wrong Tapio) made up. At least he is "into the spirit of the thing" and I therefore appreciate his position. I believe his ultimate (possible blimp) conclusion to be incorrect - but that is a difference of opinion between us I am sure will not spoil a rational debate.
I actually wanted to start at the beginning and work through case by case... but events have overtaken me... perhaps after this one?
So I guess we are now on the:
The Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter (21-22 Aug 1955)
(http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/kelly55.htm#witness)
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
You have been studiously avoiding making a positive assertion for the entire thread so that you wouldn't have to provide any extraordinary evidence, which you can't.
You thought you would be able to turn the tables on the skeptics and lay the burden of proof at their doorstep. It didn't work. Why do you think so many people have been chivvying you about burden of proof? It's still in your court, I'm afraid.
StevenCalder
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 207
Who specifically is saying that? So we can shoot them into the moon.
I see a lot of people saying it doesn't have to be beyond our understanding of reality because here's a perfectly reasonable presumptive explanation.
This looks an awful lot like the 'Sceptics deny the existence of UFO's' gambit from the previous thread that went on for pages.
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
Oh, so King of the Americas has convinced you of the "underground alien civilization"? If not, what are you arguing for?
I'm getting flashbacks to my arguments with Baby Nemesis. Anyone that disagrees with you has not read the evidence.
NEWS FLASH: We did. We just didn't come to the same conclusions you did.
Oh lord. You've given up on Rogue River, so you're dodging to a new one? Can you honestly foresee any conclusion different from the one that just happened?
This debunker fallacy just won't go away will it.
"It might have been a blimp, therefore I conclude it was a blimp"
IS a logical fallacy.
It is exactly the same logic as:
It might have been an alien craft, therefore I conclude it was an alien craft."
The logical structure is exactly the same, yet you would no doubt contend that the latter is not logical - and so do I!
If I claimed it was an alien craft on this logical basis, you would howl me out of the room...yet you apply the same logic to "blimp" and expect me to fall for it?
Come on, let's return to rational debate.
Forget the blimp as having absolutely no evidence to support it (because NONE has been produced and it is an explanation entirely at odds with the witness sworn testimony - have you even read that yet?),
and move on.
StevenCalder
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 207
This is just absurd.
You have a gift for reading 'between the lines' and seeing exactly the argument you want too.
Right, I should stop getting drawn in to this
Actually I AM providing evidence for my contentions (I posted a whole list of links in the OP if you remember).
I have also outlined my contentions a number of times.
The first is UFOs exist.
I presented the Rogue River case as one piece of evidence for why I believe that to be the case.
(I also presented in another thread the Blue Book SR14 - where 22% - on a conservative estimate - of all UFO reports were found to be "unknown")
The Rogue River evidence was summarily dismissed with no explanation as to why - in fact the evidence was hardly discussed at all - which led me to the conclusion that no-one had actually bothered to read the research report except Tapio).
Blimp was then proposed as an alternative explanation (but with little or no evidence to support that assertion).
Which of course allows me to maintain "UFOs exist".
I then proposed my next contention.
Aliens exist. (I was careful to point out I did not conclude therefore ET)
I presented the Hopkinsville case as evidence for that.
That is sort of what we (some of us) are "discussing" now...
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
You made an extraordinary claim, that it can't possibly be mundane. Now provide extraordinary evidence to back it up. NOT anecdotes.
Last edited:
This is just absurd.
You have a gift for reading 'between the lines' and seeing exactly the argument you want too.
Right, I should stop getting drawn in to this
Okay, you reject the blimp hypothesis and you therefore conclude Rogue River to be "unknown"? That is, a UFO?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Are you doing a bait and switch? UFO means unknown. You sometimes make it mean alien craft when it suits your purpose.
The Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter (21-22 Aug 1955)
(http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/kelly55.htm#witness)
(http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/kelly55.htm#witness)
StevenCalder
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 207
Rramjet, Have you not been reading?
We don't hold it as a proven conclusion!
Its a presumptive mundane explanation, and most likely one I've seen.
That's been crystal clear for pages.
No, I have NEVER contended "alien craft". Especially for Rogue River.
But I contend that by "alien craft", YOU actually refer to the ET hypothesis.
I want to state clearly also - that whenever I use "alien" I do NOT mean ET.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,553
1. There is no definitive proof of a mundane explanation (blimps), but
2. The mundane explanation is possible and cannot be disproved because there some suggestive evidence:
presence of nearby blimp hangars within flight radius
similarity of eyewitness drawings and photos of blimps.
In that case, do we consider extraordinary explanations, or tentatively conclude that it was *likely* a mundane explanation (but without definitive proof)?
2. The mundane explanation is possible and cannot be disproved because there some suggestive evidence:
presence of nearby blimp hangars within flight radius
similarity of eyewitness drawings and photos of blimps.
In that case, do we consider extraordinary explanations, or tentatively conclude that it was *likely* a mundane explanation (but without definitive proof)?
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
... unless you have reading comprehension skills at or below those of a fourth grader.
This "presumptive mundane explanation, and most likely one I've seen" of yours presupposes you know the likelihood values for all the different explanations possible - and have chosen from that "blimp" as THE most likely.
This is nonsensical (unless you know the mind of God), because you cannot possibly KNOW all the likelihood values for all possible explanations. For all you know, "alien craft" might actually BE the most likely.
You are stuck again in irrational argument.
- Status